Court Fees

Lord Goodhart: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will reconsider their recent decision to make substantial increases in court fees.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the total package of proposals to increase civil court fees, on which we are consulting, represents an average overall increase of 12.5 per cent. The majority of the fees affected have not been raised for at least two years—in the case of the magistrates' courts, more than 12 years.
	It is vital to ensure that fees do not become an obstacle to access to justice. The system of fee exemptions and remissions is designed to achieve that for less-well-off citizens. Our programme of work on court fees includes a comprehensive review of the remissions and exemptions system.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord not appreciate that the new proposals will make access to justice even more difficult for those not eligible for legal aid but not wealthy enough to be able to fund litigation without hardship? That is the case for most of the population. How is it possible, for example, to justify a proposal to raise a fee for a parent wishing to seek contact with a child from £30 to £175?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the fees are being increased to meet the cost of cases where people do not qualify for legal aid or remission. The evidence is that it is not the fees but the cost of lawyers that puts people off litigating. In our consultation we must be sure that we are not putting people off by the fees. In my submission, the more critical aspect to focus on is the cost of lawyers.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord assist the House on two matters? He is no doubt aware that the Civil Justice Council is the watchdog body over the civil courts, and that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, presided over that body, certainly until he became Lord Chief Justice. The Civil Justice Council, in a paper to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, said that,
	"a substantial portion of the costs should be defrayed from general taxation".
	It added that the,
	"general level of fees discourages access to the courts",
	particularly on the part of litigants who are employees on their own part or are in a small business.
	In view of the civil disputes affected—for example, in the case of a parent who wants to seek access to a child, the fee has risen from £30 to £175, as noble Lords have heard—does the noble and learned Lord not accept that that is an intolerable situation when we are trying to emphasise the need to give full access to the courts?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was aware of the report of the Civil Justice Council, which we will bear in mind when considering the results of the consultation on the increase of the fees. The example given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, relates to the cost of a contact application, which is being increased in a magistrates' court. The fees for a contact application in county courts and the High Court are already high, and, on the evidence, they have not put people off applying. We must raise money from those who use the courts, but we must be sure that those who cannot afford it are not deterred by those fees. That is what we are consulting on.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, since no other Member seems to wish to speak on this matter, perhaps I may ask a further supplementary. The Government appear to have decided that it is necessary to fund, at the cost of the litigants, the full costs of providing judges, court buildings and so on. That has never happened before. Does the noble and learned Lord not accept that there are real problems with this? While commercial litigants may well justify payment of a higher fee, that is wholly inappropriate for ordinary citizens, because it is inconsistent with the whole concept of access to justice.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the position in relation to civil non-family costs is that there is a desire to make the fee equal the cost for those litigants. That does not mean that the civil litigant is bearing the cost of those where there is legal aid or an exemption. That includes the cost of judges and of buildings, and that has been the position since 1992. In relation to family cases, the cost recovery target is only 60 or 66 per cent. We think it is right as a matter of principle that the people who use the civil courts should pay if they can afford it. That way there is more money, for example, for the quality of the court buildings.

Electricity Generation: Offshore Wind Farms

Lord Higgins: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether adequate steps will be taken to ensure that offshore wind farms will not present a danger to navigation.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I can confirm that a thorough navigation risk assessment is undertaken for all wind farm proposals before development consent is granted, to ensure that they would not present a danger to navigation. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has an important role in this respect. Additionally, as a condition of their consent, all wind farms are lit and marked to comply with the directions of the General Lighthouse Authority, and are marked on Admiralty charts.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he recall that the highly critical report of the Commons Transport Committee on navigational hazards in the Energy Bill stated:
	"The Government has woefully mishandled the development of offshore wind energy"?
	Is it not true that, throughout, the Government have failed to take into account the need to preserve the rights of navigation, to avoid the danger of ships hitting wind farms with disastrous economic consequences?
	It was hoped, when we passed amendments to the Energy Bill in this House, that that would deal with the problem. It now appears that officials are proposing to interpret that legislation in a way that would frustrate the intentions that were clearly expressed and, we thought, accepted by the Government to ensure that these dangers were avoided. What the Minister has just said is true, but this does not deal with what officials now appear to be carrying out.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord is referring to the question of recognised sea lanes, which are essential to international navigation. That was the amendment that he asked for, and which was passed, regarding the Energy Bill. There is no agreed definition of sea lanes essential to international navigation. Through the nautical and offshore renewable energy liaison group, we have been working on this, and we have produced a sensible and reasonable definition. A DTI/DfT paper will be published on that shortly.

Lord Greenway: My Lords, quite apart from the interpretation of recognised sea lanes, is it not the case that the recent report of the Institution of Civil Engineers, The State of the Nation, opines that, despite the Government's target of 12 per cent for renewable energy by 2010, the figure is more likely to be between 5 and 7 per cent? In view of that, would it not be more sensible for the Government to take a more measured approach to encouraging new offshore wind farms and their siting? If they do not, they risk not only prejudicing the safety of navigation but possibly putting the lives of seafarers in danger.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in their report, the civil engineers expressed clearly their view that we would not be able to achieve the 10 per cent target. I have asked them in the House and elsewhere to give me the facts and figures on which they based that judgment. Those facts and figures have never been produced; it is just a judgment. Although there are questions about the exact speed at which we can get things done and remove barriers to the development of renewable energy, it is perfectly possible that we will achieve the 10 per cent target or something close to it.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, as the Minister accepts, marine areas offer unparalleled opportunities for renewable energy, not just wind farms but wave and tidal power. Does the Minister also accept that there is a pressing need for a marine Bill that will resolve the exactly the sort of conflicts raised today by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, so that a spatial planning regime would be the mechanism for resolving them? What is the department doing to speed up that marine planning Bill?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that the intention is to have a marine Bill next year. It is also likely that that Bill will encompass the question of marine spatial planning, which is a good context in which to deal with the other issue that arises, which is the possibility of having clearways. The place to deal with that would be in a marine Bill that covered the whole question of marine spatial planning.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I think that we can be moderately confident that the existing precautions will satisfy all normal marine navigational requirements, but, of course, marine accidents occur in abnormal circumstances. Is the Minister satisfied that there are mechanisms in place to deal with the thoroughly abnormal, such as a ship that loses power at an unfortunate time? That is when the accident will occur, not in the normal day-to-day situation.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are doing a great deal of work on the issue, and we look to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to advise on the siting of proposed wind farms and on whether it is likely to pose any danger to navigation. We have done several things to help it with that process. Developers must undertake a thorough navigation risk assessment, which considers the disruption of patterns of vessel movements. The DTI has recently funded work to develop a robust methodology for that risk assessment, and we have also provided funds for a database to map vessel movements. So, the House can see that we are taking all the sensible precautions in that area.

Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Government make certain that the security services have sufficient resources to ensure the safety and protection of such installations?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am sure that that has been considered but I will check that it has.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is not the first time that the Government have been suspicious of figures produced by outside bodies such as that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. Why should we rely on the background to the Government's figures?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the question is whether figures are being produced that set out a case. If you are going to say that something is impossible to do, you have to give reasons and explanations, particularly if you are an engineer. You have to say, "Well, there are these reasons why we cannot build it at this speed. We cannot get planning permission", or there may be other problems. Merely asserting that you do not think that it is possible is not sufficient, if your judgment is to have credibility.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is not just a question of siting those enormous wind pylons on the seabed, I believe, in a maximum of 30 metres of water to the seabed, but also of getting the electricity generated ashore? That raises major technical problems on whether it should be sub-sea cables or pylons that have to be sited between the mainland receiving station and the generating pylons. Can the Minister assure us that that, too, has been carefully examined, because it raises major hazards for seagoing vessels and a number of other things as well?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that in all cases the cables have been either on the seabed or under the seabed. As I understand it, there are insuperable difficulties with using pylons to make those connections. I have written a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on that point.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, will the Minister reconsider the answer that he gave about nine months ago; namely, that only £50 million will go into the development of tidal lagoons, which are clearly a very good alternative to the approaches that we have been discussing in relation to wind farms today? Surely, that is an alternative which is nearer the shore and safer for shipping.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in all of those cases, a number of factors have to be considered, including safety and environmental impact and, of course, there is the very major question of cost. At the moment, the cost of tidal power is at the extreme end of the cost of any energy generation. Therefore, the amount of money that we are putting into basic research is totally appropriate. The answer that I gave before was both accurate and sensible.

Government and the Judiciary

Lord Clinton-Davis: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to improve the relationship between government and the judiciary.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have a strong relationship with the judiciary. I meet regularly with the Lord Chief Justice and those discussions contribute to the maintenance and continuing development of good relations. There is the strongest possible respect in the country for the quality of our judiciary and its independence. That quality and independence must be maintained and defended. The new arrangements set out in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, making the Lord Chief Justice the head of the judiciary and the Lord Chancellor the guardian of judicial independence within the Executive, ensure that it will be.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged to the Lord Chancellor for that forthright reply. Does he agree that at the moment there is enormous public concern about the so-called rift between the judiciary and the Executive, which has been stimulated falsely by the alleged remarks attributed to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips? Will the Lord Chancellor also take this opportunity to refute the allegation that he, against the will of the Judicial Appointments Commission, insisted on the appointment of Wyn Williams QC as a chancery judge and ensure that that mischievous allegation is refuted?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as regards the first point made by my noble friend—namely, the suggestion in the press that there is a rift between the judiciary and the Executive, in particular picking on remarks made by the current Lord Chief Justice—I join with him in saying that that is a grossly inflated account of the position. At the press conference giving rise to the coverage, the Lord Chief Justice said:
	"There is one point I would like to make very clear. I am taking up this office at a time when it is said in various quarters that judges are in conflict with government. They are not. Judges are in conflict with no one. The judiciary has a clearly defined role, which is to apply the law as laid down by Parliament".
	Hear, hear to that, which is the position of the judiciary.
	I appointed Wyn Williams in accordance with the best procedures. I have absolutely no doubt that he was the right person for the job. It is mischievous to say that he was not. I am very glad to say that both myself and the Lord Chief Justice, who has authorised me to say this, believe that he has done a first-class job. I deeply regret allegations to the contrary.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, on the appointment of Judge Williams, is it not the case that the Commission for Judicial Appointments suggested that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had acted inappropriately? Is it not also the case that the local appointments panel said that Judge Williams was not appointable, as he did not have the necessary experience? Given that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made the appointment against that system, for which he is accountable to Parliament, is it wise to move away from a system where we have the broader criteria that he obviously took into account?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord is right: that is what the Commission for Judicial Appointments said about the appointment of Wyn Williams. I believe that it was wrong. I believe that the subsequent history shows that it was wrong. I regard my job as Lord Chancellor to be to listen to the advice that I am given, to act on the basis of that advice and then to come to the right conclusion in relation to it. That is what I did as regards Wyn Williams. I have no doubt that we can improve the system over time, although I should make it clear that that does not reflect one jot on Wyn Williams. That is why we are setting up a new system of appointments.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware of the following facts? First, in 2004, he wrote to the judges promising that the value of judges' pension benefits would not be adversely affected by the new pensions regime established by the Finance Act 2002. Secondly, a judicial pensions Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech. Thirdly, the Judges' Council has worked with DCA officials to consider the draft Bill and that Bill in its present form has been accepted by the Judges' Council as a fair solution to the problem of preserving the position of judges in post on and after 6 April 2006. Finally, that Bill has not been presented to Parliament and the Government will not say when, if ever, it will be presented. Does the noble and learned Lord accept that unless the Bill becomes law prior to 6 April 2006 a significant number of judges who remain in post after that date will suffer a reduction in their total pension package on retirement, which would sour relations between the Government and the judiciary?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am aware of all of those facts, but I do not accept the last proposition. May I say that the noble and learned Lord was a brilliant judge, but he was wasted as a judge? I am quite unable to understand why he did not join the Transport and General Workers' Union as a full-time official, putting its members' point of view with the eloquence and force that he has just shown.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches feel somewhat differently about this issue from the noble and learned Lord. I am well aware that the personal relationship between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and senior members of the judiciary is very good, but that is not entirely true of all his colleagues. It is clear that the rule of law is an essential part of the constitution. Will he therefore advise some of his colleagues, including his right honourable friend the Prime Minister, when discussing issues about the rule of law not to speak about there being "the rules of the game"? This is not a game.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister talked about "the rules of the game" he was not talking about the rule of law. He was talking about the extent to which this country would continue to be welcoming to those who sought to plot the downfall of the state. That is a completely different issue from the rule of law, which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister accepts must be upheld by ensuring the independence of the judiciary.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor not agree that if I ask a question in this House relating to something in which I have an interest, I am brought to order and I have to declare that interest? I often find that lawyers can get away with murder in this House in asking questions in which they have pecuniary and other interests? No one ever challenges them about it.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think it would be unfair to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to say that he has an interest because, although he is a young and sprightly fellow, he is already taking his judicial pension and it will not be affected by whatever happens in relation to the judicial pensions Bill.

Smoking in the Workplace

Baroness Neuberger: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will take steps to ban all smoking in the workplace in view of the recently published paper in the British Medical Journal on the subject.

Lord Warner: My Lords, we have announced our intention to introduce a Bill in this Session which will end smoking in the vast majority of workplaces and enclosed public places. Over the summer, a major public consultation has been completed and we are considering the many thousands of responses before finalising the Bill.

Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he fully aware of the evidence that came out of the BMJ online last Monday and out of Tobacco Control that as a result of the legislation in the Irish Republic the reduction in the levels of cotinine in saliva is very considerable, far greater than in Northern Ireland? Is he not aware that the Department of Health has been arguing firmly for evidence-based policy? Do we not now have the evidence?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the Department of Health has an impeccable record on evidence-based policy. I am well aware of the paper to which the noble Baroness alludes. We are looking closely at this and other studies of the impact of smoke-free legislation. We will take full account of all the studies from Ireland and other parts of the world where legislation has been used to protect workers and the general public from exposure to second-hand smoke.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, in coming to the decision announced on Monday, his ministerial colleague responsible for health in Northern Ireland considered every possible variation to the policy, including exemptions for pubs that do not serve food, for ventilation and for the introduction of so-called smoking carriages; but that he concluded, with the full support of the Northern Irish people, as far as I understand, that only a comprehensive smoke-free policy would protect the public and work people? Does not my noble friend think it would be very strange if we had a policy that protected people in Northern Ireland, in the Irish Republic, in Scotland and in Wales but did not have an identical one in England?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I well understand my noble friend's views on this subject and I am well aware of what my colleague, Shaun Woodward, said in relation to Northern Ireland. I would urge upon my noble friend and other noble Lords to await the publication of the Bill.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, the damaging effect upon human health of both active and passive smoking is now so well understood that it deserves no repetition. Can the Minister confirm that, contrary to the proposals of the Government a few months ago, the Bill they propose to introduce will now ban smoking in all pubs, clubs and similar enclosed spaces, and not only in those where food is served?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government accept the issues surrounding second-hand smoke. That is why we launched in September a campaign which highlights the hidden dangers of second-hand smoke to adults, moving on from our previous campaign around the risk to children. All I can say to the noble Lord in relation to legislation is that he—much as I respect his judgment in these areas—must, like other noble Lords, await the publication of the Bill.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, can the Minister say how long England will take deliberating on its consultation while Wales has to wait for the primary legislation it needs to enact the results of its own consultations? The decisions have already been debated in the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government have agreed on their proposed strategy.

Lord Warner: My Lords, if you have a public consultation which does not end until the early part of September, it is customary for all governments to take account of the views and evidence produced in that consultation. Ministers are doing just that; they are taking account of all the evidence, as I assured the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger. Patience, while waiting, is a virtue in Wales and in England.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, before the Government succumb totally to the overwhelming puritanism surrounding them at the moment, will they take fully on board the difficulties expressed by one who is in the last-patch stage of giving up smoking? It is a nightmare and an unnerving experience and success is best achieved in a relaxed atmosphere, which is seldom found in the workplace.

Lord Warner: My Lords, as many noble Lords know, this is a fun loving government and we reject all accusations of puritanism in this area. On behalf of the whole House, I congratulate the noble Lord on the progress he is making. Anything more that my colleagues and I can do to help him in the steady progress he is making we will be very happy to do.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I am sure that the law is popular. Along with, I believe, the vast majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland, I welcome the decision made by our Government to ban smoking in the Province. We are still puzzled why more research is needed before the good citizens of England can be shown the same consideration.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's views.

Lord Addington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that about 80 per cent of smokers in southern Ireland have said they are in favour of this total ban? If we take into account the trend coming across the Irish Sea, what are the Government afraid of?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government are fearless in taking action when they need to. I have sometimes heard them accused of being too fearless in pursuing policies that are right for the people of this country. We are, as I said, taking account of all the evidence, and noble Lords will see the Bill before too long.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend has said that the Government have an impeccable record in respect of tobacco smoke. Does he agree that other governments have a similar impeccable record in banning tobacco products, which were banned many decades ago?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we have taken a great deal of action to restrict and contain the use of tobacco, advise our citizenry and prevent smuggling. In 90 per cent of workplaces, smoking is already banned or heavily restricted in particular areas. We are making good progress and I think noble Lords will be encouraged when they see the Bill.

Business of the House: Debates this Day

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend the Lord President of the Council.
	Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Dholakia and the Lord Renton of Mount Harry set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours and that in the name of the Baroness Scott of Needham Market to three hours.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prisons: Suicides

Lord Dholakia: rose to call attention to the rate of suicides in prison, and the effect of overcrowding on vulnerable inmates; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, this debate is taking place at a time when another important event is taking place not far from your Lordships' House. I refer to the memorial service for Lady Blatch. Our thoughts and prayers are with her family.
	Our criminal justice system is in a mess. How else can we explain the fact that the present prison population is the highest ever, at 77,622? Prisoners are being held in police cells because there is no room in local gaols, despite previous assurances from the Home Secretary that this would not happen. The prison system is now only 653 cells short of capacity in the 139 gaols in England and Wales.
	We can of course consider building more prisons or providing more prison places, but that simply means that we will fill them more quickly. It does not answer the question of how the end product of our criminal justice system has produced a prison population that is so high. We are now obliged to look at other alternatives; for example, expanding the home detention curfew scheme, the executive release of offenders more quickly or release with an electronic tag. Any alternative to prison is welcome.
	The problem of overcrowding has been getting worse rather than better. At the root of the problem is the fact that more people are being convicted and a higher proportion sent to prison. Sentence lengths are also increasing. Ministers' pronouncements on being "tough on crime" have not helped. There must be a clear message that we should be aiming to send fewer people to prison. We need a determined effort on the part of politicians to secure a decisive shift in the public perception of crime and punishment.
	It is not revolutionary or controversial to say that courts should send to prison only those whose offending makes any other alternative unacceptable and that those who are sent to prison should not stay there any longer than is strictly necessary.
	Let us look at the women's prison population. This stood at 4,559 on 23 September 2005. It increased by 173 per cent over the decade to 2004 even though the nature and seriousness of women's offending has not been getting worse. The men's prison population rose by 50 per cent over the same period. These women are rarely serious, violent offenders and they generally pose little risk to public safety. The most common offences for which women are sent to prison are theft and handling stolen goods and the evidence suggests that the courts are imposing more severe sentences on women for less serious offences.
	So what are the consequences? The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report at the end of 2004 on deaths in custody. It raised particular concerns about women, highlighting that, while women represent just 6 per cent of the prison population, 15 per cent of self-inflicted deaths and over half of prisoners resuscitated following serious self-harm in 2003 were women. The committee's recommendations included feedback to judges and magistrates on sentencing decisions, including self-harm and suicide, and a cross-departmental expert task force on deaths in custody.
	I have often spoken about children in our penal institutions. The Howard League for Penal Reform, the Prison Reform Trust, Inquest and NACRO—I declare my interest as president of that organisation—have produced detailed briefings and I am grateful to them. I remain extremely concerned about the record number of people being sent to prison and the shockingly high numbers of those who take their own lives once there. Since 23 May, when I last raised this issue on the Floor of the House, a further 40 people have taken their own lives in our prisons. I know that prison staff do their utmost to help out those in distress. However, their ability to provide proper care and treatment for the suicidal is fatally compromised by the volume of new arrivals from courts.
	Another area of serious concern is the self-inflicted deaths of immigrant detainees. The number of self-inflicted deaths in immigration detention has significantly increased—seven immigrant detainees took their own lives between January 2003 and September 2005, yet there were only four such deaths between 1989 and 2003. The most recent death occurred on 15 September 2005, when Manuel Bravo from Angola apparently took his own life in the family unit at Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre, where he was detained with his 13 year-old son. The state has a responsibility to protect the human rights of those it detains.
	So what should we do? First, we should focus on making necessary changes to the legal framework for detaining asylum seekers and migrants under immigration Act powers, to ensure that detention powers are limited by accessible and meaningful legal safeguards. Secondly, we should improve the investigative process if a death occurs, to ensure that wider lessons for policy and practice are identified and implemented, particularly in the absence of friends or family of the deceased in the UK to apply pressure.
	The number of self-inflicted deaths in prisons in England and Wales last year totalled 94—the highest recorded number for a year. The number has risen from 65 in 1997. Expressed as a rate per 100,000 prisoners, the rate rose from 111 per 100,000 prisoners in 1997 to 127 in 2004—a wholly unacceptable figure. We all know that the Prison Service has an unenviable task in attempting to tackle this problem. It is accommodating a population of people who are significantly more likely to attempt suicide then the general population. Around 20 per cent of men and 40 per cent of women entering custody have previously attempted suicide. Over the years the Prison Service, led by its Safer Custody Group, has adopted a wide range of measures designed to identify potentially suicidal prisoners and to take the necessary steps to provide supervision and support for them. Yet the number of prison suicides has continued to rise. Why are we failing?
	What more needs to be done to check and reverse that distressing trend? First, particular attention needs to be given and support provided to prisoners who have recently been received into prisons. More than half of suicides last year—57 per cent—were by remand prisoners, and almost one-third of suicides occur within the first week of a prisoner arriving in custody. Is extensive use of remanding in custody necessary? All establishments that receive prisoners from the courts should have first night in custody schemes and follow-up arrangements to support prisoners during that particularly vulnerable time.
	Secondly, research on prisoners who have made unsuccessful suicide attempts has found that most suffer mental health problems that contribute to their attempts. Many of them—and this is particularly true of female and young prisoners—describe memories of physical and sexual abuse as a key factor in producing the mental state that leads them to attempt suicide. Nearly two-thirds of those who commit suicide in prison have a history of drug abuse and nearly one-third have a history of alcohol misuse. It is crucial that high quality services should be available for prisoners with mental health problems, addiction problems, and a need for counselling and support to cope with past experiences and abuse.
	Thirdly, high suicide rates are associated with low levels of purposeful activity in prisons. Research into prisoners who have unsuccessfully attempted suicide has found that those prisoners emphasise the importance of greater access to work and activities both in and out of their cells. That provides a distraction from distressing thoughts and memories and gives them a greater opportunity to get informal support from other prisoners.
	Fourthly, everything possible must be done to design or modify cells in ways that reduce opportunities for suicide by eliminating ligature points which prisoners can use to hang themselves. Between 1998 and 2004, the overwhelming majority—around 92 per cent—of prison suicides occurred by hanging. The most common ligature points were windows, which were used in 59 per cent of cases, with the second most common being the bed, used as a ligature point in 17 per cent of cases.
	Fifthly, prisoners serving life sentences are over-represented in the suicide figures. Between 1998 and 2004, 21 per cent of suicides involved life sentence prisoners, who constituted 8 per cent of the prison population. Prisoners facing a long sentence are likely to face particular problems of depression, but when that sentence is not only long but also indeterminate their uncertainty over when, if ever, they will be released can only add to prisoners' sense of anguish. That is yet another powerful reason for reviewing the necessity of the mandatory life sentence for murder, so that courts can use determinate sentences in cases where the circumstances of the case make this the proper option.
	The sixth and crucial point is that the Government must make determined efforts to reduce the prison population. There is a clear link between overcrowding and the number of suicides. A recent research study found that 10 of the 20 establishments with the highest incidence of self-inflicted deaths were also in the top 20 for turnover of population.
	Overcrowding damages the Prison Service's attempts to reduce suicides in several ways. First, it makes it more likely that signs of depression and suicidal intent will be overlooked when staff are struggling to cope with an excessive number of prisoners. Secondly, it makes it harder to provide a full regime for prisoners and makes it more likely that prisoners will be held in their cells in idleness for long periods. That can worsen depression, reduce prisoners' opportunities to get support from staff or other prisoners and help to tip the balance towards suicide. Thirdly, overcrowding makes it more likely that staff will miss signs of bullying and intimidation of weaker and more vulnerable prisoners, which is an important element in some suicides. Fourthly, it increases the pressure on prisons to move prisoners to prisons far away from their families and friends, making visits and family contact harder, which can increase the isolation and depression of potentially suicidal prisoners.
	If we are to give the Prison Service a real opportunity to combat the rising toll of prison suicides, we must reduce the excessive use of imprisonment. It is particularly unfortunate that the Home Secretary has chosen to abandon his predecessor's commitment to the targets set out in the Carter review to reduce the projected rate of increase in the prison population from 93,000 to 80,000 and to require sentencing guidelines to take into account the capacity of the prison system. It is not too late for the Home Office to think again about these measures. By reducing overcrowding in the prison system, they would not only help the Prison Service to rehabilitate prisoners more effectively but would also save lives.
	I beg the Minister to look at the proposals made by the joint Women in Prison/Fawcett Society's recommendations. They make sense, and I look forward to the Minister's written response on these matters. I also commend to the Minister Barry Goldson and Deborah Coles' publication In the Care of the State. It is about child deaths in penal custody. It would be helpful to receive the Minister's written comments on their recommendations also.
	It is still possible to detect attitudes among politicians that the best thing to do with the criminal is to lock him up in our unpleasant institutions and throw away the keys. We forget that almost all but a handful of prisoners will be released from prisons one day. It is better to release people with a renewed measure of self-respect and a range of skills rather than allowing them a greater sense of grievance against society for the indignities, real or imagined, suffered during incarceration. The inmate is in the care of the state from the time the sentence is announced. We should hold the state responsible for what happens to him during that period. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Rosser: I have to declare an interest. I am chair of the Prison Service Audit Committee and a non-executive member of the Prison Service change programme board.
	One possible interpretation of the title of this debate is that there is a direct link between the rate of the suicides in prison and current levels of overcrowding. I am not sure that all the hard evidence necessarily points conclusively in that direction although one's natural inclination is to feel that it must be one possible factor among many. In Austria there has been a rise in the prison suicide rate during a period when the prison population has decreased, and so far this year in this country there has been a welcome reduction in the number of self-inflicted deaths at a time when overcrowding has increased. However, overcrowding in our prisons certainly is an issue and it has adverse effects on life in prison. Prison numbers are at record levels as the courts continue to exercise their judgment over who should be in custody and, more significantly, for how long.
	Overcrowding and the associated increased weight of numbers produces its own pressures—leading to less time for inmates out of their cells, reduced access to work and other constructive activity and less effective operation of procedures relating to matters such as visits and reasonable access to showers and telephones. Prison staff are placed under greater pressure as a result of overcrowding and have less time to deal with issues or spot problems. More inmates also means that more staff resources have to be directed towards running areas such as reception for longer hours as the number of prisoners being moved in and out of a prison each day rises.
	Overcrowding creates the possibility of disorder. The riot at Strangeways in 1990 and the wave of copycat riots in other establishments is one example. The loss and destruction of half of Wymott Prison in 1993 is another, as was the last major riot, in 2002, at Lincoln Prison. The loss of prison places as a result of another riot now and the resultant need to move existing prisoners elsewhere at short notice would cause considerable operational problems in a Prison Service already holding record numbers and at or near its full overcrowded capacity.
	Accommodation being tight also increases the number of occasions on which prisoners have to be transferred to other establishments, some considerable distance from their homes and families and to which they do not wish to go, in order to maximise the use of the available accommodation. That is because, for reasons related to ability to contain pressures where they can be most effectively managed from both a safety and security point of view, overcrowding population pressures are concentrated mainly in the local prison estate rather than across the prison estate as a whole. Where such moves of prisoners have to take place it is less likely that staff will know prisoners or will have time to get to know them, which potentially reduces the flow of intelligence to prison staff. Such moves also increase the likelihood of intergang and group rivalries since prisoners in one area do not always appreciate an influx of prisoners from another area of the country. Feelings of tribalism can at times be quite strong and destructive of harmony. In local prisons high numbers of prisoners are locked up for about 22 hours a day with only limited time out to collect meals and have access to exercise.
	This year it is possible on current trends that the number of self-inflicted deaths will be down on the last three calendar years and close to the target reduction figure. However, November and December, with the run-up to Christmas, are normally very difficult months. The three-yearly annual average figure is some 10 per cent over the target figure.
	One question must be how suicide rates here compare with other countries. Unfortunately, it is difficult to draw comparisons of prisoner or offender suicide rates between different countries since there are differing definitions of what is regarded as a suicide and methods by which the rates in relation to the prison population as a whole are calculated. However, it is clear that suicide rates are higher in prison than in either the general population or the general male population. Studies also indicate that it is during the first day, week and month in custody that suicides are most likely, and that for this reason remand prisoners are among the most vulnerable.
	Few studies have considered suicide rates among offenders under community supervision, but the work that has been done suggests that the rates for male prisoners are not higher than rates among male offenders outside prison. In England and Wales the suicide rates in the two groups were found to be similar.
	A recent finding from England and Wales showed that the number of suicides by convicted prisoners in the year following release from prison was more than double the number in prison. Between April 1996 and March 2000, 354 convicted prisoners died by suicide in the year following release from prison—23 per cent of whom died in the first month after release and 12 per cent in the first week. This compares with a total of 167 convicted prisoners who killed themselves in prison during this period.
	In England and Wales trends in prison suicide rates have paralleled reported trends in community rates. There has been an increase in the consumption of drugs associated with suicide risk, especially cocaine and crack in England and Wales. A high percentage of prisoners have been on drugs immediately prior to being convicted. Significant numbers suffer from mental illness and mental disorder. The prison population is mainly young males from lower socio-economic groups where the incidence of suicides in the population as a whole is highest. The prison population is not a cross-section of society but comes heavily from those groups most prone to self-inflicted deaths.
	Any self-inflicted death in prison is a matter of real concern and regret. Those remanded or convicted are placed in the care of the Prison Service, and any self-inflicted death inevitably raises questions about the effectiveness of the care that was provided. However, some who are determined to take their own lives give little or no indication of that risk. Dr Shipman would appear to come into that category. The reports from the ombudsman who investigates self-inflicted deaths in prison recognise that in many cases the outcome could not realistically have been prevented.
	Even with prisoners who do give signs that self-inflicted death is a serious possibility, it is far from easy to prevent that outcome over an extended period of time where there is an apparent determination to pursue that course of action. While attention will naturally be concentrated on suicide attempts that succeed, as I understand it no estimates are available to show what must be the very considerable number of suicides that have been prevented or thwarted by the actions and diligence of the Prison Service and its staff—actions for which they do not always get the recognition they deserve as too many people whose condition is a serious medical one end up in prison because there appears to be no appropriate place to send them. I refer to people who hospitals do not want because of their behaviour and attitude that makes them difficult patients; people whose mental problems may not previously have been fully diagnosed because they have been masked by the drugs they have been taking, but which come to light in prison as the drug taking stops; people who I understand claim they are "hearing voices" telling them to do things, including taking the most drastic step of all, which puts them at the top end so far as risk and seriousness of their mental state are concerned.
	Overcrowding in prisons certainly creates operational problems but it is not the key issue so far as the incidence of prison suicides is concerned. The key issue here is the need to deal more effectively and appropriately with the serious mental and psychological problems of so many of those who seem to end up in prison as there is nowhere else to send them and for whom there has too often been no means of seeking to address their problems before the criminal offences resulting in imprisonment are committed.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I want to express, on behalf of all those with a concern for these issues, my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for initiating the debate. We are talking about an extremely serious matter. I speak in the debate principally as the bishop to Her Majesty's prisons in England and Wales, although the examples into which I shall take the House occur in my own diocese in Worcestershire.
	We are dealing with a complex issue, and it is extremely important that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, indicated that statistics on it simply often serve to heighten its complexity. The complexities are also highlighted by many of the suggestions and remedies put before us by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. For example, it is right that we need to attend to the construction and design of cells that do not have ligature points that facilitate hanging, but that in itself must not be done at the cost of putting highly vulnerable people in a situation in which they do not have access to ventilation. It is extremely difficult to be clear about the issues. But—if I may be blunt—we live in a society that professes not to find capital punishment acceptable. We therefore have to take with great seriousness our complicity in a system that, whether we want it to or not—and we do not—leads many people to take their own lives.
	Among those people are the most vulnerable groups. Other speakers in the debate will, I am sure, highlight young people and their disproportionate increase in imprisonment. It may be true that you could reduce overcrowding and still have a problem of prison suicides, but it is certainly true that we have to take extremely seriously a situation in which, although 6 per cent of the prison population are women, 15 per cent of the suicides are among women and more than half the incidents of resuscitation following attempts on people's own lives were of women. We have to take extremely seriously the fact that things happen to people in prison that are very traumatising, as the statistics produced by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, illustrate clearly. That is one reason for the fact that being released from prison can often be as traumatic as being put into prison.
	What the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said bears that out and it was important for us to hear it, because I do not subscribe to the view—I hope that nobody else much does—that the Prison Service is staffed by people who do not care or go to endless trouble to try to deal with the matter. I hope that nobody will suggest that the Government and the Minister do not care, or that the outgoing director-general of the National Offender Management Service did not care about the issue. I had the opportunity of conversations with him, and I know that he cares about it very deeply. But it is extremely difficult for people in such positions to make the point that has, with regret, to be made—that most of the people for whom the Prison Service has responsibility have a history of falling through all kinds of nets, not being noticed in all sorts of ways, and having endured treatment that the rest of us would find extremely difficult to tolerate. Most people in prison have been the victims of crime. That is something that we need to keep telling ourselves. Of those who have not, certainly a vast number have been the victims of neglect and abuse that may fall short of the criminal, but probably not very far short.
	We need an approach to the issues on every possible front available. Of course we need to give more training to prison staff; of course we need better systems for watching people, particularly in those vulnerable early days and hours and of course we need to be sure that we do all we can to bear down on prison overcrowding; I shall come to that in a moment. It must be the case that overcrowding induces stress and places stress on regimes and on the system generally.
	Perhaps I may ask noble Lords to accompany me in their imagination into Brockhill Prison for women in my diocese on a day following two suicides in close proximity. I am sitting in the governor's office with the governor and the chaplain. I am the only man in the room. The place is besieged by men inspecting the prison to find out why the suicides occurred. Not surprisingly, the two people whom I am with are suffering a huge crisis of morale and of self-examination. I believe that chaplaincy plays an enormous role in helping people to come to terms with suicide, which is, as we all know if we have experienced it with friends or family, an extremely aggressive act which leaves a terrible mark of guilt and self-disesteem.
	Noble Lords may wish to accompany me to another prison in my diocese—Blakenhurst Prison—where there is good news. Immediately following the terrible tragedies of three suicides in that prison, the chaplaincy team of all faiths were active together in supporting demoralised staff afflicted by terrible self-doubt. I watched that work going on. Chaplaincy has a very important role in this regard because chaplains are seen to represent an alternative authority, an alternative system and an alternative perspective on life that enables people to speak of what is in their heart, whether they are staff or inmates.
	It is extremely important that we consider this matter. If people committed suicide in your village or town in the same numbers as they do in prison, that village or town would, by now, be in crisis. The fact that we do not see this as a crisis suggests to me—this is perhaps the most serious matter of all—that we are not taking the people concerned seriously enough. That is the most important indictment that we could face.
	We must be very aware of the slipperiness of the language of last resort which is often used in relation to prisons. When we say that prison is a last resort, we may mean that we use it for people for whom our imaginations have run out, or we may mean that we simply have not got round to thinking of something better to do. It may be a last resort and it may still be unacceptable for some—indeed, an increasing number—of the people whom we send there. I very much welcome this debate and I hope that from it will come a renewed sense of urgency about this issue.

Lord Fellowes: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for initiating this important debate. I declare my interest is chairman of the Prison Reform Trust, and I believe that the chance to discuss this grim subject could not come at a more opportune time.
	No matter where you stand on the subject of the efficacy or otherwise of a prison sentence, you would be hard pressed now to say sincerely, "Prison works". With the prison population at an all-time high, with an average of something like two suicides a week, with self-harm rife, especially among young prisoners and women, and with, crucially, the whole system reaching saturation point, how could you claim that "prison works"? Patently, it does not. After all, three-quarters of young men released are reconvicted within two years. It is not working for them and it is worth remembering that it is not working for those against whom they are reoffending.
	Today, I want to look at just one aspect of this failure to "work" which I think is crucial to any effort to improve the situation. Efforts are of course being made. After all, no government wish upon themselves a situation as dangerous and potentially explosive as this. It seems to me that we fail at the very outset of a prisoner's sentence; that is assuming—and I hope I am right—that there is a real wish always to rehabilitate and not merely to incarcerate our prisoners.
	When prisoners receive their sentence, they receive their punishment. This should not mean that they lose their rights as members of our society or as human beings entitled to decent and humane treatment by the rest of us. As it is, one of the most potent symbols of inclusion in society—the right to vote—is automatically removed on receipt of a prison sentence; an aggravation of the punishment which I believe to be unjust and pointless. I do not expect that this deprivation is high up on the prisoners' worry list on arrival in prison. There are other more pressing matters such as the squalor of sharing a cell built for one with another prisoner. But the fact is that the signal is sent that you are on the outside while you are inside.
	As your Lordships will know, the Grand Chamber in Strasbourg ruled on 6 October that this blanket ban on prisoners voting was wrong and violated human rights. If the reported—and I stress "reported"—reaction of the Government is as I read, Ministers immediately turned their mind not to how to implement this welcome judgment but to how to do as little about it as possible. This I find disappointing and I long to be cheered up by being assured that the real reaction is more positive.
	While I recognise that this is not an easy issue and that there is a case for a continuing ban on the most serious offenders, I urge the Government to give constructive and welcoming support to the judgment and to get rid of the total ban on voting by prisoners, which is a signal of exclusion, and to set about looking for ways of assuring prisoners that our objective for them is their inclusion in society as rehabilitated and responsible members of it. If they do, it might just be—and I am sure entirely coincidentally—that there is an upsurge of interest from Westminster in the condition in which prisoners live. There might just be a consequent improvement in conditions and there might be an improvement in the ghastly record of suicide, self-harm and reoffending, presently afflicting our prison population.

Lord Giddens: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for initiating this debate on such an important subject. I have spent much of my career studying suicide and I feel that I know more about that subject than about prisons. However, I hope that my comments will be of interest. I want to make four or five points on suicide and then four or five about the implications for suicide in prisons, the concern of this debate.
	First, suicidal actions are emotionally complicated. One might think that suicide is about death and of course it is. But suicide is nearly always about life. It is about punishing people; it is about expiation; and it is about making an impact on people who are alive. It is not just about death. One must make a clear distinction between the deep emotional causes of suicide and the precipitating factors. That is very important in prisons.
	The precipitating factors may be amazingly minor compared with the varied emotions. There is an interesting study of people who have jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge. If you jump off that bridge, you are likely to die—it is a long way to the bottom. But a handful of people, through some kind of vagary of entering the water at a certain trajectory, have survived and have been interviewed. One said, "I jumped over the bridge and as soon as I was on the way down I thought I could have solved my problems". Someone else jumped over the bridge because she had boyfriend problems. However, these are not the true causes of the suicidal actions.
	Secondly, suicide always presumes the intent to die. If you walk into the road and are accidentally knocked down by a car and die, that is not suicide. However, the intent to die must always be inferred afterwards. Suicide is one of those actions where you cannot ask the person why he or she acted as he or she did. That means that suicides must be identified by coroners on the basis of inferences made after the event. Most suicides do not leave notes; only about 30 per cent of them leave notes.
	I have been studying this for many years and I have come to the conclusion that suicide rates are, at best, extremely problematic. Suicide rates look like hard data; they are not. They depend on inferences. Those inferences are made from circumstances where the judgments of coroners are known to vary wildly. That includes coroners who consider prison suicides, as well as other suicides in the country. So please do not place too much credence on suicide rates or draw too many inferences from them, because you will be wrong. They are not like death rates; they are very different.
	Thirdly, depression and mental disorder has been mentioned. It is an important indicator of suicidal risk, but, even so, it is an indicator of only a small proportion of suicidal risk. Most people who are depressed do not commit or attempt suicide, even if they have been chronically depressed. Most suicides have no record of chronic depression. It is a mistake just to study suicide, whether in prison, or anywhere else. You must study suicidal behaviour, which is a much bigger category. There is a difference between suicide, attempted suicide and self-harm. There are connections between them but they are essentially different populations. It is important to recognise that. Rates of attempted suicide, if you trust rates at all—as I said, you must be very careful about them—appear to be about 20 or 30 times as high as rates of actual suicide. The populations are different. Far more women attempt suicide than men; whereas male suicide rates, if you trust them, are higher than those of women. They are not the same populations. Self-harm is an even more distinct population which merges only to some extent with the others.
	That is very important because many suicidal acts are not committed by people with the intent to die. They are more complicated than that. In many attempted suicides and, indeed, in some real suicides, there is essentially a gamble with death. A woman will take barbiturates at about the time that her husband normally returns. If her husband returns, she is saved; if not, she may die. It is amazing how many people take barbiturates without checking their impact. They take those things but they do not know how lethal or otherwise they are. Your Lordships probably know the well known joke. Someone jumps off a 24-storey skyscraper and at every window on the way down people inside at each level here him say, "So far, so good. So far, so good. So far, so good". He misinterpreted the nature of risk, because he was going to die. There is no risk. But in many kinds of suicidal actions, the use of risk is a means of demonstrating something both to yourself and to other people.
	Finally in this catalogue, institutional suicide has different characteristics from suicide outside. There is the well known phenomenon of contagion, for example, in institutional suicides. You often get clusters of suicidal actions that happen at a particular time, where there is a copycat thing. It is often copycat in method; sometimes it is copycat in place. For example, if there is a high roof from which one person jumps, a cluster of people may seek to do so.
	What are the implications? To some extent, they are lethal for the arguments that have been deployed so far. I agree with their content but not at all with most of what has been said about their relationship to suicide. First, during the past couple of weeks I read a lot of the literature on prison suicide. There are wild generalisations there—I fear that some of them have been repeated here—that are either false or depend on unknowns. For example, there is a report that says that suicide among young men in prison in Britain is 18 times higher than in the general population. I very much doubt that. We have no studies that compare like populations. Prison populations include a lot of young men who are mentally ill, as has been said, who have drug problems, who come from poor backgrounds and who have a whole range of other problems. We could only know if we compared them with other men who had those problems in the wider population. It is no good comparing it with the ordinary suicide rate of young men. A lot of the claims that are made about suicide in prison are spurious, or at least highly dubious in their content.
	We must give attention to institutional factors in suicide. The moral condition of the institution is often as important as the individual risk assessment, and it is often more important. In relation to what has been said today, respect is often the key. But not respect in the way in which the Government want the agenda—that is offenders to give respect to others—but others to give respect to offenders in the context of the prison.
	There is no way that you can prove that overcrowding leads to higher suicide rates; at least I do not see how you can possibly prove it. We just do not have the data on that. It is not likely, because what we know of suicide across prisons in different countries is that isolation is much more dangerous than being in a cell with other people. The worst thing you can do for a new offender is isolate them rather than putting them in a cell with other people. I doubt whether that connection is there, and even if it there, it is not demonstrated.
	We have a lot of studies of risk profiles that have been done in prisons around the world. As was said, one of the most dangerous periods is the first few weeks in prison. The reason for that is confinement shock. What stimulates suicidal behaviour is often not oppressive conditions—it is wrong to say that. It is change; it is being introduced into a new environment. That is why the point made by my noble friend Lord Rosser is so important.
	Finally, do not expect too much of the Minister. I looked at a report in 1919 on suicide in prison. It raises all the same issues; the suicide of young men, claims that suicide rates are going up, overcrowding in prisons, and so on. Those are endemic issues. I have two questions for the Minister. Why are so many mentally ill young people sent to prison when they really should be receiving psychiatric care? Why do you not concentrate more on the nature of prisons and institutions rather than the individuals in them if you want to change some of these forms of self-destructive behaviour?

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I begin by joining those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on initiating the debate, and I salute him for the breadth and wisdom of his initial contribution.
	I come to this subject with no great pleasure, particularly as in my time as the Chief Inspector of Prisons the subject of overcrowding came up over and over again, as did unfortunately the rising number of suicides. What concerned me about overcrowding was not just the number of people who were held in cells that were not designed to hold more than one, but the effects on the whole prison system, in that overcrowded prisons meant overstretched staff and that the resources that were needed to help people to come out and not reoffend were so choked that people were denied anything to do. So the overcrowding is to my mind just as important in terms of its effect on the regimes and therefore on the protection of the public by preventing reoffending than merely the number of people in cells.
	I have two quotations from other people. Once, when inspecting a young offender institution in Warwickshire I had the great pleasure of finding one of my ex-corporals who had been with me in Belfast, who was the receiver for juveniles coming into custody. I asked him, "If I could wave a magic wand, what would you for?" He said, "Time. We are run off our feet, and we do not have time to give to these young people. Twenty minutes talking to some of these young lads as a responsible adult male is probably more important than anything that is going to happen to them". I should like to draw attention to the word "time".
	Secondly, the leader in the Guardian of Friday 14 October stated:
	"There is one clear lesson from earlier prison overcrowding crises. They cannot be resolved by a building programme. That approach has been tried by both Conservative and Labour administrations with disastrous results".
	It has been described like putting another lane on the M25 that merely gets filled up as soon as you have done so. The article continues:
	"There were three main drivers of this process. First, prison became a political football between the two major parties. Each tried—and still does—to sound tougher than the other. Criminologists have documented how tough political rhetoric at the top feeds down to sterner sentences from the bench. Second, a succession of ever more punitive criminal justice laws ratcheted up the numbers who were put away. Third, both politicians and the judiciary were egged on by feral tabloid press campaigns".
	Am I alone in being upset and concerned that the Prime Minister's understandable wish to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime seems to have become distorted by an "R" that he has found on a carpet in Downing Street? He now appears to want to be tough on "causers" of crime, which is not the same thing at all. I am disappointed that last week the Prime Minister criticised the judiciary and called for anti-social behaviour orders for 10 year-olds, which wound up that feral tabloid press, which will wind up the public, which will wind up the Prime Minister and ratchet the whole thing up more. Can we please have some consistency?
	I applauded what the Home Secretary said to the Prison Reform Trust on the need to tackle re-offending and to deal with individuals as individuals. Yet almost immediately afterwards he suggested that the Probation Service, which of all services deals with individuals in the community, should be privatised. That would undermine the ability to deliver community sentences, which are needed as an alternative to custody. Please may we have consistency?
	The leader also states:
	"The end result is that now we have more prisoners per head of population than some of the most repressive foreign regimes, such as Burma, China and Saudi Arabia . . . Prison only exacerbates these problems [faced by prisoners]. It breaks the three key bonds that help people go straight: one-third lose their homes, two-fifths contact with their families, two-thirds their jobs".
	Often, when crises arise, people say that they do not know the facts. This week the Prison Reform Trust published a wonderful document called Bromley Briefings, to which I draw noble Lords' attention. I suggest that they put it on their required reading list. Toby Bromley, who enabled it to happen, was a remarkable man who wished the public to know the facts. The facts are here:
	"This briefing has been produced to provide clear, accurate information on the state of our prison system and the lives of men, women and children within it . . . While this briefing presents facts and figures it is not merely about numbers. It is designed to prompt a response to people held in our least visible, most neglected, public service".
	I feel ashamed when I look at the briefing because it describes what is happening in our prisons—in an allegedly civilised country—which has been known about for years, yet we seem helpless to do anything about it. But are we helpless? The year 1919 is mentioned, and I could go back to 1776 and the state of our prisons, but I shall refer to two documents. One was published by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, following the riots in Strangeways. He says:
	"On the evidence, prison riots cannot be dismissed as one off events, or as local disasters or as a run of bad luck. They are symptomatic of serious underlying difficulties in the prison system. They will only be brought to an end if those difficulties are addressed".
	As a practical soldier I know that dealing with people requires things with people involved, looking after people. What worries me about current government initiatives, such as the National Offender Management Service—I wish that it were called the National Offender Management System, as that it is really what it is all about—is that they seem to treat people as commodities, which they are not. The service deals not so much with the management of offenders but with the management of the management of offenders.
	The only White Paper ever published on prisons, Custody, Care and Justice, in September 1991, following the Woolf report, said:
	"The White Paper recognises, as the Woolf Report recognised, that a better and more stable prison system requires a coherent and consistent strategy for the Prison Service. This White Paper provides such a strategy".
	It lists 12 priorities, of which three are:
	"To provide active and relevant programmes for all prisoners, including unconvicted prisoners. To end overcrowding. To develop community prisons which will involve the gradual realignment of the prison estate into geographically coherent groups serving most prisoners within their area".
	If only that strategy had been followed, which it has not, we might still be having this debate today, but I suspect that we would not be faced with these dreadful figures. If the Government wish to do something about this, I beg them to stop imposing on the time of people who are trying to deal with prisoners and having to sort out systems and bureaucracy. All that NOMS has achieved so far is two additional layers of bureaucracy, effectively cutting the budgets of the Prison Service and the Youth Justice Board by requiring money for it, and demolishing and demoralising the probation service. I am very distressed to have to stand here and say that.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, as ever, for his long-term commitment to this cause. There is no dispute between us today that the penal system is not in good shape. It is not in good shape ethically, and I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester for dealing with that so effectively. It is not in good shape to deliver its outcomes, as a place to work or to protect the public. Much is going wrong.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, mentioned the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on deaths in custody. In that report, the Committee stated:
	"We are convinced that inappropriate reliance on the prison system is at the root of many deaths in custody. Many very vulnerable people are being held in prison unnecessarily, with no benefit to society".
	I shall devote the rest of my remarks to the phenomenon of inappropriate reliance. Why is this happening? Why are prisons full of those who everyone agrees should not be there? I suggest this outcome is a direct result of Home Office policy. There are a number of areas, mainly in the towns and cities, where a range of social problems is concentrated: low incomes, dysfunctional families, drugs and mental illness. Research from Scotland shows that one quarter of Scotland's prisoner population comes from 53 council wards. One in four of the Scottish prison population comes from wards where only 7 per cent of the population lives. It is no surprise that these wards are also the most deprived in Scotland. I am sure that similar research could be done here, and maybe that is what we can glean from the welcome contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Giddens. The prison population is a highly selected population.
	The Home Office, through its penal policies, has become the repository for the social, health and community problems that local areas feel they do not have the resources to solve. Local services are hard-pressed and when people are sent to prison the Home Office pays. The biggest psychiatric hospital in the United States is not a hospital at all, but the Los Angeles county jail. It holds 3,400 mentally ill prisoners. We have not gone down this road as far as the United States, with prison as the default welfare and health service for the most poor and disadvantaged people, but we are moving in that direction.
	At every point, Home Office policies encourage rather than discourage taking the criminal route. People in great social distress commit minor crimes. We can choose to deal with the social distress, or we can follow the crime route. If we keep doing this we shall need many more prison places, because the number of people who can become eligible for courts, sentencing and prison in these deprived areas is large. Once imprisonment enters people's lives, it will continue to be their fate, and will spread to their family members.
	How does the process of shovelling into prison large numbers of the more deprived members of deprived communities work on the ground? The Home Office policy called "Narrowing the Justice Gap", which actually means more prosecutions, is one pathway to inappropriate punishment. Instead of putting in place systems to divert vulnerable people from arrest and charge towards mental health and drugs services, it gives the police targets to arrest more, charge more and bring them to justice—although the policy does violence to the meaning of the word "justice".
	The next place to divert vulnerable people is the court. That depends on regular probation officers knowing the magistrates; knowing the area; earning the trust of the sentencers; and working co-operatively with the local authority and all the local agencies that can deliver services that will socially reintegrate people. In their policies for probation, the Government have taken a completely different path and required the service to put its main energies into enforcement, into risk assessment and into seeing people in city-centre offices and dealing with their problems in isolation from their social setting.
	The gateways to prison need to be harder to get through. The gatekeepers need to be able to provide a better answer. There has to be a service at a local level—not national or regional—level, with a network of relationships based on trust, not contracts, and on long-term co-operation, not competition. For those reasons, the Home Secretary's plans for the probation service fill me with dismay, and I imagine that prison governors are similarly dismayed as they envisage the increasing numbers that will come their way. Soon, if we take that route, we will have 100,000 prisoners, many of whom will have been inappropriately locked up.
	Last week, I had the privilege of visiting Holloway prison. Noble Lords might be surprised to hear me say that I found it an inspiring place, run by an exceptionally dedicated governor who is surrounded by many enthusiastic, talented members of staff. If the Government's policies were as good as those staff deserve and if the constant flow of desperate women who need care not punishment were stemmed, those staff would have a chance to realise the vision set out by the Home Secretary in his Prison Reform Trust speech on 19 September—a vision of community prisons working to reintegrate prisoners into the community's mainstream services.
	I do not intend to ask the Minister any questions of my own, although I am grateful to her for, for the first time ever, giving me a reply the last time that I asked some questions—it was well received. However, I hope that she will answer the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Giddens.

Lord Hooson: My Lords, when I came to the Chamber today, I had no intention of taking part in the debate. I have not intervened in debates in your Lordships' House in recent times.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord ought to observe the proprieties of the House. If he wishes to comment on the subject, he should speak in the gap, if there is time.

The Lord Bishop of Leicester: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity that the debate affords us to raise profound questions and concerns about the use of custody for children and young people and its consequences for us all. I declare an interest as chair of the Children's Society.
	I imagine that we would all regard the recent increase in the use of custody for children as one of the most alarming developments in youth justice. Since 1992, custodial sentences for children have increased by 90 per cent, and the number of child suicides since 1990 is 29. We appear to have a somewhat schizoid approach to the problem. On the one hand, we have a welfare and protection system that is based on ensuring that children are safeguarded and their needs met, an approach that is being strengthened through the Every Child Matters agenda. However, as soon as the child crosses the line into criminal activity, the approach all too quickly becomes one of punishment and retribution. The purpose of the youth justice system is to prevent reoffending. As a result, there is inadequate consideration of the welfare of the child, which results repeatedly in the placing of vulnerable children in prison settings.
	Concerns have been raised about conditions for children and young people in prison from various quarters—some have been referred to in the debate—including the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Chief Inspector of Prisons and, most recently, the Council of Europe. The Children's Society concurs with the recent recommendation from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which wrote:
	"We urge the Government to re-examine, with renewed urgency, sentencing policy and practice (and in particular the use of detention and training orders) and alternatives to custodial sentences, with the specific aim of reducing the number of young people entering custody and with a commitment to implementing Articles 37(b) and 40(4) of the Convention to the fullest extent possible".
	I shall explore the difficulties involved in finding alternatives to prison for young people. A young male aged 15 or over sentenced to a detention and training order will almost certainly serve it in prison. The court has no power to direct that a detention and training order should be served in any particular type of secure location, regardless of whether the young person has already been assessed as being or is otherwise evidently too vulnerable for prison. It was over that dilemma that the judge in the case of Joseph Scholes deliberated for 19 days in reaching a decision on sentence. The availability of placements in secure accommodation is a critical factor. Whatever the outcome of a vulnerability assessment and professional judgment, it is the availability or otherwise of an appropriate placement that will determine whether a vulnerable child is relieved of the pressures of penal custody.
	Prison Service accommodation is cheaper, and that presents a major challenge to the aspirations of the Youth Justice Board. Perhaps the most crucial factor that enables prisons to be so cheap in comparison with other options is the staff ratio. Local authority units provide a ratio between one member of staff to every two children and three staff to four children. The ratio in secure training centres varies between 2.5 and 3.8. Prisons, however, average between 3.4 and 6.6—by far the lowest staff-to-client ratio of any child placement of any kind in any sector.
	The consequence is that the number of vulnerable children detained in young offender institutions has risen from 432 in 2001 to 3, 337 in 2003–04. The vulnerability of the young people in Prison Service custody has been well documented. Some 60 per cent have previously been looked after by a local authority; 85 per cent exhibit signs of personality disorder; and 25 per cent of males have suffered violence at home. It is estimated that, at any one time, there may be as many as 300 young people in prison who are in need of transfer to in-patient mental health provision that simply does not exist. The recent Safeguarding Children report raises concerns about the vulnerability of young people detained in young offender institutions and highlights serious levels of bullying and assault and a high risk of harm. In recent research published by the Children's Society, over 100 children, staff and prison officers were interviewed about the vulnerability of children in prison. The research sends out a clear message that prison is a dangerous place for children and highlights the lack of faith that children and staff have in the ability of the prison system to support and protect them.
	The fact that Joseph Scholes, Adam Rickwood and many other young people like them found themselves in Prison Service custody at all is testament to the problem that we face. Children are not being treated as children; they are not being given the help and support to address their welfare needs and the underlying problems that lead to their engagement with a criminal justice system that is no place for them. The Youth Justice Board has recently produced a strategy for custody for children. It aims to reduce the use of custody for children by 10 per cent by March 2007, which is, of course, to be welcomed. I urge the Government to consider that in their forthcoming and eagerly awaited youth justice Bill.
	I would call on the Minister to make a commitment, first, to end the use of Prison Service custody for children and young people; secondly, to reduce the numbers of children and young people sentenced to custody; and, thirdly, to invest in alternative secure options for the small number of children and young people considered to be a risk to themselves or other people. The juvenile secure estate cannot continue to struggle and, too often, fail to meet the needs of children and young people, many of whom are extremely vulnerable, the result of which can too frequently be their deaths. That is a risk too far for all of us.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for enabling us to have this important debate. I also remind your Lordships that I have the privilege of chairing the All-Party Penal Affairs Group. In June, 16 people killed themselves in our prisons, which is the highest number for any month on record. Last year, 95 people in prison took their lives, which is equal to the highest number for any calendar year since records were kept.
	The risks of suicide in our prisons are known and recorded: one-third happen in the first week of custody; one in seven happen within the first 48 hours of the cell door slamming; around two in every three prisoners who commit suicide have a history of drug abuse; one in three of alcohol abuse; and seven in every 10 have a history of mental disorder. Those things are known and the system totally ignores that evidence.
	I welcome, as does the Prison Reform Trust, the new programme to try to prevent suicide being phased in across the Prison Service. It involves considerable specialist training, which can only be the more difficult to achieve alongside massive and growing overcrowding. The growing shameful and shaming number of prison suicides has its roots in alcohol and drug misuse problems and a high incidence of mental disorder. But it also raises a larger question which must be answered. Is prison really the best place for prisoners with those known predictors of destructive self harm? Prison staff, however well trained, are simply not equipped to offer the specialist help and treatment that those vulnerable prisoners need.
	Instead of building new prisons and then struggling to isolate wings to better handle those with known needs which point to serious self-harm—overcrowding drowns those good intentions—we should build secure hostels where health and medical professionals can more effectively deal with the known needs which lie behind the offence. Surely, that is a better way of trying to reduce self-inflicted deaths and to reduce reoffending.
	Reoffending rates—one of the main reasons behind overcrowding—demonstrate the expensive failure of our prison system. Mr and Mrs Joe Public are not getting any value for money for the £37,000 a year that it costs to lock someone up, when more than seven in 10 offenders are back inside within two years. Overcrowding assists reoffending because it denies too many prisoners any proper chance while inside of taking advantage of schemes to deal with alcohol and drug abuse or to learn useful skills.
	Our prisons lock up 78,000 men and women, which is set to reach 90,000 in five years. Who are they? In July, 12,953 were on remand, not sentenced or awaiting sentence. That is one in six of the total prison population. Almost one in five of that number will be acquitted or not proceeded against and eight out of 10 of them face non-violent charges. Is that the most sensible use of expensive prison places? While the number in prison expands, the numbers of those sentenced by courts has fallen over the past decade. More people than ever before are sent to prison by magistrates and Crown Courts. Why do so many magistrates send one in five people found guilty of non-violent shoplifting to prison, which is nine times as many as in 1993? I simply refuse to believe that there are no community punishments available to deal with shoplifters. Overcrowding is made worse by short sentences of fewer than six months for all but a handful of those sentenced for non-violent theft and motoring offences.
	The alternative of proven, well funded and targeted non-custodial sentences is not only cheaper but also can give the offender a longer period to take advantage of the help on offer while keeping up family and social links. I suggest that the public have no idea of the problems which prison officers face—some of which have been referred to. Forty-seven in every 100 men and half of the women in prison run away from home as a child; just over one in four were taken into care as a child; one in three truanted from school; and 52 in every 100 men and 71 in every 100 women have no educational or skilled qualifications. Unsurprisingly, 67 in every 100 prisoners were unemployed when convicted.
	That is not to make an excuse for criminal behaviour. It is a plea to better understand the roots of offending and reoffending in order to increase the chances of finding a variety of ways in which to deal with it and to decrease the chances of reoffending. We need sensible boldness in our prisons, not tacking on the odd new shed and the odd fence here and there. No one can be satisfied at the moment with a system which expensively fails to achieve so much at such a high and rising cost.
	Gaol should be only for that minority of offenders who are convicted of the most serious and violent offences, with specialist secure establishments for those in need of a range of health and other treatments. Community sentences should be more widely used to address the offence and the education, training and other needs of the offender, again, to reduce reoffending and help to encourage them to become useful members of society.
	Earlier this week, Erwin James, who, towards the end of his 20-year sentence in prison, began writing a column for the Guardian, described to a meeting of the Prison Reform Group how he had used his time in prison to help himself and to educate himself up to degree level at the Open University. He said that most prisoners need educators rather than gaolers. I ask the Minister to think about that. He told openly a very moving story of the positive way in which he had been able to handle his sentence. The pity is that he is an all too rare person in a system more used to expensive failure than personal, social and community success.

Baroness Murphy: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for introducing this debate today. We spoke not long ago in a debate on deaths in custody. I will not repeat some of the things that I said then. I speak from the vantage point of being a psychiatrist who has had much experience of people with suicidal behaviour. I also chair a strategic health authority in London, which is now responsible for the performance of primary care trusts commissioning mental health services in prisons and mental health trusts which are meant to deliver it.
	We have had an excellent academic seminar from the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, on the causes of self-inflicted deaths. I shall not repeat everything that he said. He is absolutely right, except in one respect. I do not share his therapeutic nihilism about what needs to be done, but he underlined what others have said; namely, that we are importing into prisons now a population of which 90 per cent has a diagnosable psychiatric condition. You cannot separate out self-inflicted deaths from the provision of healthcare and mental health services to that population. But that is a crazy way to have to do it.
	On the face of it the Government have invested quite phenomenally in this area in the past five years. They have transferred the prison health service to the NHS, and it has been progressing for the past four years and has made substantial progress. The cornerstone of the comprehensive primary care service, with rapid access to specialist mental health professions has happened, in part. In-reach mental health teams—a sort of community team in prison—are now active in 94 prisons, with more coming on stream. There are 300 extra NHS staff employed to work in prisons. We have had excellent work in producing the Offender Mental Health Care Pathway. There are excellent templates of good practice from pre-prison custody through reception and acute care to release. It is all wonderfully constructed, great stuff. There is excellent partnership working between agencies, the Home Office, the Department of Health and external agencies.
	So what is the matter? Why is it so difficult to effect change in prisons when we know what is known about the correct approach, and when there is unprecedented senior management effort and ministerial concentration on this dilemma? Either the strategies are ineffective, which I do not believe they are, or the strategies are effective but management is under the impression that they have been implemented at local level when they have not, or the strategies are implemented but the sheer numbers of vulnerable individuals at risk makes for a high failure rate. I think it is here that the correlation, if not the direction of causality, is necessarily established between overcrowding, staff attention to the matter and the risk of self-harm being so high. Lastly, there may be extraneous and diametrically opposing policies of setting improvements in other aspects of prison care and some of them have been mentioned here. I suggest that the problem is a combination of at least three of these.
	The strategies might work if they ever got a chance. They are implemented on a minute scale. There are too few people trained to understand them. In-reach teams that should spend most of their time training staff and working with people directly on a 24-hour basis are usually 9 to 5-type teams. They are inundated with work with 10,000 people with severe psychosis currently held in prisons. Such highly disturbed prisoners are waiting for beds outside, but many of them will never have an opportunity to get into one.
	We have heard many good things about the governors and senior staff behind these efforts, and there are many psychologically-minded prison officers too. But there is still a small group of deeply unsympathetic and influential prison officers who undermine attempts at cultural change in some local prisons. Tackling that culture and introducing a therapeutic and, I strongly agree, educationally-based regime is not a soft approach, but a tough approach that is paternalistic in the best sense. However, it is being undermined in some respects.
	We have heard about the number of people coming through the system and I remind noble Lords that they are constantly on the move. Establishing therapeutic relationships is difficult enough in the first day or the first week, but when people are constantly on a merry-go-round and disappear overnight to some prison without any communication of psychological information, how on earth does one do it? Our mental health teams are constantly saying, "We were getting there, and he disappeared". Why does the Prison Service seem to believe that moving people around is essential or, perhaps, beneficial? It looks completely crackpot, given the population in its care.
	Finally, I have a proposal. There are many similarities between the Prison Service and the National Health Service. They are both centrally directed bureaucracies with executive chains of command and vast distances between the top and the bottom of the hierarchy. Even private prisons often have a similar distant chain of command. I have noticed that to tackle cultural change in the NHS one needs far greater local accountability. That requires not just good and visionary local management, but also using people who are in a non-executive role, such as chairs and independent chairs. The best foundation trusts, which keep in mind the need to improve patients' awareness and experience of services and to provide a buffer between the local trust and the central national executive, are those that have excellent locally accountable boards with the input of non-executive staff.
	I know very well that the Government have supported the introduction of that sort of accountability in the NHS and are now doing so in the education service. It would be interesting to know whether the Government would consider doing the same sort of thing with the Prison Service. It needs to engage wider talent from outside its usual channels of appointment to improve local accountability if these cultural issues are to be tackled more quickly.
	Finally, we have to get to grips with who needs locking up. As other noble Lords have said, when one arm of the Home Office is developing policies to tip more sad and difficult folk into an overflowing system and another arm is working on policies to mop up the human spillage, there is something seriously awry with the overall system.

Lord Elton: My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for bringing to your Lordships' attention a subject that is of enormous importance to this country and to this House. I emphasise that, because I must explain that the reason why I am the only person on my party's Back Benches is that the memorial service for my late noble friend Lady Blatch is at this moment concluding across the way. It was only with the greatest regret that I decided that I should join your Lordships because our duty is to the living. Lady Blatch, of all people, would have understood the importance of this issue.
	I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, with us, not only because of her recent absence but also because she has been concealed from me throughout this debate by the Dispatch Box, even when I have been promoted intermittently to the Front Bench.
	There were 95 suicides in prisons in 2004, as has already been mentioned, and 150 people were resuscitated who were presumed to have attempted suicide. The problem is even greater than we sometimes accept. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, rightly said that the true rates inside and outside prison are probably less different than they appear because the prison population is a self-selecting sample. But whether or not it is, these individuals are so absolutely and completely in the hands of the state and in its care that we have a duty to them.
	When I left the post of Minister for the Prison Service in 1982, the average number of prisoners on roll was less than 44,000. It is now over 74,000. So building has not worked. The comparison with building another lane on the M25 is unfortunately a good one. Among that large number of our citizens, why are so many children put into the system? It is entirely wrong, and it was seen as wrong in the 1970s. Governments were forced to undertake to ensure that it did not happen again. As a Minister, I was chasing individual cases of children who should not have been in prison and finding it very difficult to get them out, but they were a handful. Then we have the astonishing figures produced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. I would like a response to that because it ought not to be.
	The right reverent Prelate the Bishop of Worcester told us that we live in a society that does not find capital punishment acceptable and therefore inferred that society has a similar duty to see that suicide is not acceptable either. I have to tell him with great deference that he is wrong. Society thinks that capital punishment is acceptable, and has said so in frequent opinion polls. It is the state that says that it is not and it said so under the direction of Parliament, of which we are a part. Therefore, I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate that there is a duty, but it falls squarely on the state and even more squarely on the shoulders of parliamentarians such as ourselves. We, as Parliament, have said that capital punishment shall not happen, even though the public wants it. We have an equal duty to express an equal compassion for people who are minded to take their own lives.
	Whatever the precipitating factor may be, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Giddens—who said, "So far, all right" after the sixth minute; "So far, all right" after the seventh minute; "So far, all right" after the eighth minute, and sat down before the ninth—what has died in a prisoner who commits suicide is hope; it has been killed by the institution. Some of your Lordships heard last night a most moving account from a former life prisoner of how this manifested itself in the cell and on the landing; how someone you thought of as a steady, reliable person one day was simply not there the next, and it kept on happening. It happens twice a month.
	Is there a direct connection with overcrowding? You can prove it either way. The top 10 prisons for the number of suicides are among the top 20 prisons for overcrowding. On the other hand, 70 per cent of prisoners who died in custody last year did so in single cells. So there is a very complicated argument about how our prisons should be designed and the effect of overcrowding on prisoners.
	Perhaps I may latch on to something the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said on this issue—if I had time, I would simply repeat everything he said before I tacked on my own feeble observations. He pointed out that the pressure falls intolerably on the prison officers whose duty it is to look after these people. It prevents human and humane contact. When people go into a prison they do not go into a machine and they are not a commodity; they are people. They are as precious in the eyes of God as are your Lordships—in fact, many would argue more so—and that being the case, we have a duty to do something about it.
	No doubt the Minister will tell us about what is being done. I should be interested to hear what progress is being made with something called ACCT—which stands for assessment, care in custody and teamwork—because that seems to be about how prisoners are managed as people. But we have to give it more time and more resources—and that means we must somehow reduce the number of prisoners involved.
	In my last 50 seconds I remind your Lordships of the theme that I come back to every time in these debates: we ought not be putting so many people in prison because it does not work. The ratchet effect, the winding-up process, says it does—a politician on a platform says, "Prison works", the audience rises to its feet, a government programme is born and the press then builds on that year after year—but it does not work, except for the few minutes or maybe the few years that the prisoner is in. What works is getting to young people before they become prisoners; finding the enormous energy and enthusiasm they have got to deploy on something and giving them something constructive to deploy it on.
	That is best done by the voluntary sector. I would like to see the resuscitation of a programme of government funding for voluntary sector initiatives—little ones, all over the place—targeted in run-down estates, where the last pub has closed, where the last shop has gone, where the bus connection is faltering, where the windows are being broken, where the flats are being boarded up. Let us find an adult or two who want to form a jazz band or a rock-climbing team; who want to go white-water rafting or form art, music or tapestry classes—anything. They will transmit freely from their voluntary enthusiasm to young people. In that way success is born, not by locking them up.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I add my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for introducing the debate so comprehensively.
	The figures on suicides in prisons are very worrying. As well as concern about the mental welfare of those who end up in custody, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who has just spoken, would like to look at the antecedents to them being there, and particularly to being at risk of suicide.
	The figures suggesting a five-fold excess of suicide mortality in prisons are alarming, but I would suggest that every suicide is a reflection of society as a whole and that society cannot lay all the blame at the doors of the prisons. Sadly, many of your Lordships have first-hand experience of bereavement from suicide and the plethora of "what if?" and "if only" thoughts which remain unresolved for the rest of their lives.
	There is a global trend apparently of increased suicide rates over the past 50 years so that by 2020 there will be a projected 1.53 million suicides a year of all types. It may be that prevention measures in some countries have been offset by huge rises in developing countries, such as China and India, but the inaccuracies of classification of deaths makes it difficult to assess.
	But let us focus on England and Wales. A recent study of prisoners in the past 25 years by Seena Fazel and colleagues is important because it reports a rise across all ages, with a particularly striking excess in young boys aged 15 to 17 years. It is this group that I want to focus on.
	It is known that severe emotional stressors, including traumatic bereavement in childhood and adolescence, are linked to offending and maladaptive behaviour. A family history of suicidal behaviour, a history of psychiatric hospitalisation and symptoms of anxiety or depression are independent risk factors for suicidal ideation in prisoners, and prisoners with suicidal ideation have a higher risk of self-destructive acts in the long-term after discharge from prison.
	In 1998, a Cardiff prison medical officer, Dr Nick Jones, and I tried to find out if bereavement was linked to people ending up on remand. With an occupational therapist and four nurses, he tried to discover whether the young offenders on remand in Cardiff had a higher incidence of unresolved grief than others in the population. They had noticed that some of the remand prisoners seemed the most emotionally vulnerable and had a history of traumatic bereavement. The prison authority wanted to be helpful but was very frightened that even asking a question about past bereavements might precipitate a suicide. So it was agreed that only those prisoners who came to the medical services for any reason were given an information leaflet, assured of confidentiality and offered an interview. Those with a history of bereavement were invited to a semi-structured interview, conducted with great sensitivity by these very motivated staff, and were offered a series of support sessions.
	Among those wishing to attend the support sessions, more had witnessed a violent death, felt that they had not coped well with the loss and had more pointers to depression and suicidal ideas. Many of these young men described traumatic bereavements. For example, three were bereaved through suicide; one was in a car crash that had killed his girlfriend; one prisoner's baby had died and another's girlfriend had had a fatal pulmonary embolism, linked to the conception that she was taking, after his imprisonment. Sadly, none of those taking up the offer of support sessions completed them for a variety of reasons, often being moved on by the system.
	If we live in a society that does not adequately recognise the disastrous effects of loss and bereavement on young people, that does not provide them with any haven of safe support where they can resolve their grief, where can all that anger and chaotic emotion of bereavement go? If all that anger is unfocused, it is hardly surprising that it turns against the society that has not supported them and ends up in criminal activity. When in custody the unresolved grief and the depression that goes with it become high risk factors for suicide.
	But it is also well known that those presenting to prison medical services with insomnia and pain are traditionally perceived as manipulating to try to obtain hypnotics or analgesics. I suggest that the prisoners who are presenting thus may be particularly emotionally vulnerable, may have a history of unresolved grief and could benefit from support that does not medicalise their presenting complaints. However, the resources of the prison health service are too stretched to take this on, although voluntary sector assistance could well be harnessed to try to provide some support for those who present with unresolved grief. But until the extent of such antecedents to offending behaviour are linked to suicide, then a better way to prevent suicide will not be developed.
	Suicide prevention and prevention of offending behaviour must be linked to providing support to children and adolescents overall. All those, when bereaved or otherwise traumatised in our society, deserve support. Proper bereavement support to children and adolescents must become a routine part of our health and education provision so that every staff member considers the relationship of the dying or dead patient to young people and feels that it is his or her duty, working in healthcare or education, to ensure that children or adolescents are included as part of the family and are important as secondary patients in the bereavement process. Otherwise we are just waiting until those children exhibit offending behaviour. Some of them will, some will become imprisoned and some will commit suicide. It is far too late, then, to be wringing hands.
	Perhaps the first step towards would be to adopt fully the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, giving children equal status with adults right across the board.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for securing this debate. I have no experience of working in a prison although in 1985, I worked briefly in an intermediate treatment centre—one of those for which the noble Lord, Lord Elton was responsible—aimed at keeping children out of prison. I am generalising from my experience of work with children outside prison and my visits to prisons.
	I agree with my noble friend Lady Murphy about the Government's investment in criminal justice since 1997. I note in particular the reception the youth offending teams have received. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for her efforts and those of her colleagues in persuading sentencers not to use custody and remand for short sentences.
	I should like to concentrate on the training, support and supervision of prison officers, especially those working with children. Sir William Utting's report on safeguarding children in children's homes, People Like Us, said—I am paraphrasing—that the best protection for children is an environment of overall excellence. Prison officers are their best safeguards.
	Who are these children in young offender institutions? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester described them very clearly. I would add only that many are of low intelligence and have experienced interference in their development early in life as well as very inconsistent parenting. They are punished, there is no interest in setting limits for them and then they are punished again. It goes both ways.
	The lifer to whom many noble Lords have referred began his criminal career at the age of 10. When asked about children in custody, he said that this was the most challenging group. They strive to act as hard men, to seek respect; they model themselves on the idols of drug and gangster culture. Prison officers have told me that these children are the most difficult to manage. From my own experience, I know it is extremely stressful working with them.
	I was recently at an awards ceremony for National Grid Transco graduates from a young offender institution. Thames Water,I think, was presenting awards for graduates' success in training and preparation for employment as water engineers. The young men's mothers, girlfriends and children attended the ceremony, but there were no male relations present. I spoke briefly to the senior prison officer escorting them who said that those young men do not have fathers taking an interest in them. The person presenting the awards saw his role that day as an interested father figure; he talked to the individuals who had been caring for and supporting the young men and could give them feedback about their achievements. I was given a lift back by one of the water engineers who had been training these young men, who said he had never done anything as rewarding in his working life.
	The prison officers in young offender institutions whom I have met seem enthusiastic about their work; they have great potential to be the positive role models that these young men lack. This I hear from others who know of them. But there can be 60 children and only four or even three prison officers to a wing. The children spend 100 hours of their week under the direct supervision of prison officers, who could do the most to remedy the problems of the past.
	I welcome the Government's introduction in the past year of the juvenile awareness staff programme. It is a seven-day programme to train prison officers, who then train other prison officers, on matters such as child protection. It comes very, very late; it is only the initial stage in developing the awareness that is necessary for vulnerable children, but I welcome it.
	I am concerned that staff should receive better supervision for working with vulnerable children. In the social care and healthcare arenas, such staff should receive regular individual supervision from an experienced practitioner to ensure that they are doing what they should be doing and that they reflect on their practice. This is the means of relieving officers of the stress of working with such vulnerable young people, helping them to understand what is going on. I cannot say how much it shocks me that prison officers are being put in this situation and children are being placed with them. No wonder there is a hard core of very resistant prison officers. To undergo that experience over a long period of time can brutalise some people. We need to look at how they do things on the continent, where training and support is very professional and the calibre of staff working with vulnerable children very high.
	I see that I have gone over my allotted time. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Lord Hooson: My Lords, I have long thought that there was an overdue case in this country for setting up a broad-based royal commission to look at the whole question of our antediluvian penal system, which is in many respects a blot on the record of a civilised country. I hope that this debate, initiated by my noble friend Lord Dholakia, will encourage the Government to do so, through the medium of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. I would be amazed if she were not entirely in favour of such a royal commission; it could strengthen her position in government to argue for it. We have heard about so many of the problems; they can be solved only by a deep study undertaken from all points of view. From my experience—and I do not intend to reminisce—it is long overdue.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, this has been an extraordinary debate and one which we must all remember. The deaths of people in the "care" of the state are our responsibility and we are all implicated; all responsible. So we must be grateful to my noble friend Lord Dholakia for initiating the debate and reminding us of that.
	I declare an interest in that I have had the experience of losing a close family member through suicide—and I expect that I am not alone in the House in that respect. That is what helps me connect with some of the realities of what we are debating, for we risk losing touch with the reality of this subject in the measured words, strategies and statistics, which somehow deaden the enormity of it all. I also have a life-long involvement with working in prisons. Over the past decade or so, despite the talk, initiatives and policies, the problem has grown relentlessly, particularly, and most shockingly, among women and children. We must therefore now become far more aware of the realities and feel the urgency. Then the people in the care of the state might have a better chance of staying alive because it would be at the very top of our agenda. It would inform how we carry out our duty of care to those in custody, and the individual's right to life as enshrined in Article 2 of the ECHR. I fear that we still lack the necessary sense of urgency.
	Yesterday, I was told by two senior Scottish Prison Service administrators that they put prisoner life above security when it came to determining priorities in the SPS. We have to learn from them. Although small by comparison with England and Wales—an international comparison of sorts, to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—the Scottish Prison Service is also suffering from the apparently inexorable growth in its prison population, but its suicide rate continues to fall, in contrast to England and Wales. The perception down here is that as the prison population rises, so inevitably must the suicide rate. We could challenge that perception.
	In all the statistics quoted by many noble Lords—bearing in mind the clinical caveats of the noble Lord, Lord Giddens—the ones which stood out were that boys aged 15-17 are 18 times more likely to kill themselves in prison than in the community; that almost 40 per cent of women have previously attempted suicide; that more than half of those who died were on remand and therefore still innocent in the eyes of the law, and that 72 per cent of suicides are by people with a history of mental disorder. Worst of all, in August 2004, a 14 year-old killed himself in a secure training centre—the youngest ever. That reminds us that the Prison Service has a massive job in dealing with desperate and desperately disturbed people, but that on entering prison and in our care those people are at greater risk of dying.
	One last statistic, which defies my imagination, is that 228 prisoners were resuscitated by staff last year. That is a task that we should not be asking our prison officers to do. I know and admire many of our prison staff, and my work at the Butler Trust has demonstrated the best of best practice in the awards that we give, including for suicide-related work. They are at the sharp end of what we are talking about, and the need for greater training, expertise and insight into the risk factors as a priority seems inescapable.
	The irony is that this has been a subject that has exercised policy makers, practitioners and professionals in the field for many years. We have heard how the inspectorate has been at pains to point out the problems and the need for change, and that a lot of time, money and care have been expended on the issue, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. The work of the Safer Custody Group bears witness to that with detailed manuals on the management of suicide. However, they do not take account of the bigger picture and the underlying causes. The latest initiative, which is to be welcomed, is Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork, which could make an impact—although I am told that the assessment training for prison officers is only one day—but it is not due to be fully rolled out until March 2007. That is too long while people continue to die. In Scotland, a similar and successful system has already been established and subsequently further improved on and refined because it is at the very top of Scotland's priorities.
	We all know—and have heard today—that prisoners are a very vulnerable group where mental health issues and drug and alcohol addiction are huge problems for the prison staff which impact on the risk of suicide especially in the early days of incarceration. We know that the first night in custody and the first few weeks are the worst, although lifers are also over represented in the figures at the other end of the scale. But first night initiatives and centres are not in every prison as they should be and the assessment and treatment of drug users currently fails to pick up and stop all potential suicides. Better, ongoing training—which is currently inadequate—must play a part in all this, as well as the understanding that prevention is the priority.
	A fundamental issue is that unless and until the culture in many of our prisons changes, until the prevalence of bullying in many establishments and the lack of prisoners sense of being safe is dealt with, the most vulnerable will remain at serious risk. I listened with great interest to the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, on that matter. The major challenge rests locally with governors and senior managers and others in the community.
	However, the single most scandalous aspect of what we fail to do for all those in our charge is to keep the children safe. Noble Lords should read the small book to which my noble friend Lord Dholakia referred, "In the Care of the State?", which catalogues the misery and despair of the youngest and most vulnerable of all prisoners and the context of the legal, political and practical issues which accompany them. And now, only last month, the most recent death took place of a 17 year-old in HMYOI Hindley. That makes 29 children, all 17 and under, who have died in our care since July 1990. Their stories make terrible reading, not just their deaths at their own hands, but their histories of self-harm, mutilation, abuse, bullying and distress which had finally become beyond their endurance. This is not a responsibility to live with without doing something about it as a matter of urgency.
	I have spoken on several occasions about the unacceptable existence of secure training centres of which there are now four, and which have been growing under our feet during the life of this Government. These are places where we incarcerate children as young as 12—a fact that prison administrators from Europe cannot believe—which are quite simply child prisons. I have visited one where I discovered that a privilege to be earned was a teddy bear. Last year in Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre, a child of 15, and five feet tall died, not, in this case, by his own hand, but by staff in what is called a "double-seated embrace" while being restrained. Not even in the middle ages can such an epithet have been used to describe such an activity. That method has now been permanently suspended, noble Lords will be glad to hear, but it remains the case that physical restraint of some kind has been used on children in STC's 11,593 times.
	I, along with every other agency working with children, urge the Minister, whose humanity and intelligence is well known to all of us, seriously to reconsider the continuation of such child prisons, and to invest instead in developing local authority secure units whose provision is nearer home, whose ethos is more on welfare than punishment, which is no more than the rights of the child requires, and where, to my knowledge, no child has ever died. Some may be less than perfect, but commitment and investment could deal with that. I remind the House once again that in Scotland no child ever reaches the criminal justice system until he or she is 16, or even 18 in some cases, for they are dealt with by children's panels in the community where the child's need not his deed is the first priority.
	It must be recognised that, in a situation where the use of prison does not reflect crime rates, those now being sucked into the system are increasingly those marginalised and vulnerable people who would not have been in prison in an earlier era when sentencing was less severe. That is particularly true of women and children. What it also means is that prison staff are put under ever increasing pressures, both from the growing proportion of vulnerable prisoners whom they have to deal with and the sheer weight of numbers, not to speak of the churn and the moving on of prisoners about which we have heard. The evidence is that in England and Wales there is still a statistical connection between prisons with the highest overcrowding and the highest suicide rates, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. Unless and until the prison population is reduced to a manageable size, those problems will remain unmanageable in any kind of professional or humane way.
	What plans are there to improve staff training, speed up the new ACCT procedures, ensure that first night centres are in every prison, address and stop bullying to create a safer culture and to phase out STCs in favour of LASUs? What is clear is that we have in prison enormous numbers of people who should never be there, either by virtue of their age, their vulnerability or their mental illness. As a result, we have given the Prison Service an impossible task to fulfil—and given some prisoners an experience so inappropriate and awful, given their difficulties and needs, that the system—which means all of us—is killing them. The killing has to stop.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I must first apologise to your Lordships and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for not being in my place when this debate started. My safety factor did not build in provision for a blockage due to a traffic accident. Therefore, I ask leave of your Lordships to address the House from this Dispatch Box.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has done the House a service in calling this debate, and all of us who have taken part are most grateful. The debate has again highlighted the value to this House of the Cross-Bench Peers—and we have not been disappointed today. After hearing the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, we of us who represent political parties here can feel to some extent up before the beak.
	The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, has shown that in a debate of this kind we can beg to differ in an elegant and constructive way. Indeed, whether there really is a correlation between overcrowding and suicides in prison has been the theme running through the debate, but the two subjects are so serious that I choose to assume that there is a connection.
	This is a subject that is not short of statistics and, once again, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has given us a lesson in producing them in a meaningful way. Anything that I add should be regarded as merely additional, but I start with the statistic that two people a week take their lives in prison. During the past year, more than half the prisons in England and Wales were overcrowded. In 2004, 139 prisons in England and Wales were overcrowded; indeed, according to the Prison Reform Trust there are prisons that are not only overcrowded but at some point have exceeded their maximum capacity. At the end of October 2004, 11 prisons were operating at or above maximum capacity. It is against that background that we have to examine the impact of suicides. A helpful table produced by the Howard League shows that out of 159 suicides in prison since 1 January 2004, 90 occurred at the 35 most overcrowded prisons. Put another way, more than half of all suicides in prison since that date have occurred in just a quarter of all prisons.
	It is worth mentioning that one of the most insidious causes of overcrowding in prison is the pressure put on some prisons by being required to accommodate remand prisoners, who have of necessity to be located reasonably near the court at which they are to appear. That obviously places a great strain on such prisons and is a major cause of overcrowding, a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, referred. The management of those prisons have frequently to resort to the regrettable practice of churning, whereby convicted prisoners have to make way for remand prisoners, which often entails their being moved some distance away from their families. A debate earlier in the year, instituted by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, in your Lordships' House, highlighted the particularly disastrous effect that churning has on female prisoners, when their offspring can present additional complications.
	I was pleased to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, some good news from Holloway. Statistics on this prison have been bandied about in previous debates, one of which was that five prisoners have to be cut down each night. I should be very grateful if the Minister, whom we are very pleased to see back in her place after her recent problems, could help us out with that, if necessary through a letter.
	A further serious problem of overcrowding applies to prisons receiving prisoners from the courts, where the sheer volume of the prisoners arriving following sentencing in the courts frequently means that there is a shortage of time and space to examine properly a prisoner's welfare needs. For instance, Wandsworth, in so many ways an exemplary prison, has the continual challenge of coping with prisoners arriving from the south-west London courts. As the annual report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons for 2002–03 put it succinctly,
	"population pressure means that prisoners are decanted rapidly to whatever places there are in the system".
	Let us not forget that it is the new arrivals who are at the most risk of suicide. Your Lordships will be aware from previous speeches that 40 per cent of all suicides occur within the first month of custody and 10 per cent in the first 24 hours. Several speakers have drawn attention to the insidious effect of boredom on the morale of vulnerable prisoners and the need for a meaningful degree of purposeful activity, which embraces among other things time spent at work and in education and training, physical education and offending behaviour programmes. The minimum target is measured by the key performance indicator, which requires that every prisoner should spend on average 24 hours a week on purposeful activity. The KPI has been met only once in the past eight years. My noble friend Lord Elton produced a list of a wide range of activities that might be possible—and I certainly endorse his plea for a greater involvement from the private sector.
	It is a statement of the obvious that one way in which to reduce overcrowding is to reduce the prison population. I note that the Carter report published in 2003 envisages that the number of prison cells required by 2009 can be cut by 13,000 by the greater use of fines. That relies heavily on the Sentencing Guidelines Council implementing a change in sentencing practice and helping to "align"—as it says—capacity with the demand placed on the system by sentences. I am told by my noble friend Lady Noakes that before I arrived the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made that point. If that policy is successful, its effect will be felt first by a fall in the number of remand prisoners—although many of your Lordships may be forgiven for thinking, "I'll believe that one when I see it". Can the Minister give the House reassurance that that policy is on course?
	On the subject of remand, I remind your Lordships of two statistics highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett—that more than half of all those who kill themselves in prison are on remand and that 60 per cent of those remanded to custody do not subsequently receive a prison sentence. I feel that those two statistics, taken together, provide a really damning reproach on our society.
	I am aware of the initiatives being taken by the Government to address the monitoring of prisoners at risk by the replacement of the existing self-harm and monitoring process known as F2052SH to the new Assessment Care in Custody and Teamwork Plan, a point made by my noble friend Lord Elton. I shall be very interested to hear from the Minister how this transition is working out.
	The points concerning children in custody in prisons have been so well made by so many of your Lordships today that I feel there is little to add.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, made a suggestion for a royal commission. This I would very much support. I hope that this royal commission will address at an early stage the embarrassing fact that our prison population is 141 per 100,000 of the population. In Germany the figure is 98 and in France 93. That must have a bearing on the subjects we have been discussing today.
	In a previous debate on this subject the noble Lord, Lord Judd, made a remark which left an impact on me. He reminded the House that when a person goes to prison the state takes total, but total, responsibility for that person—for his or her welfare and rehabilitation. It is a point that was brought out again by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. He said that although capital punishment has been abolished in this country—whether it is the wish of the people or the wish of Parliament, it has been abolished—we have a form of capital execution which we are not able to overcome at this point.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has done the House a service in drawing attention to the problem of overcrowding and the sad link with suicide—areas in which, quite frankly, the state is failing in its responsibility. I know that the Minister has been given advance dispensation by the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, but I also know that we shall not be disappointed. I very much look forward to her reply.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount and all those who have welcomed my return. Whether that welcome will remain after I have spoken I do not know, but we will wait and see. I join noble Lords who have very genuinely and warmly thanked the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for initiating this very important debate—a debate which has been of extremely high quality. Each and every noble Lord who has spoken in the debate has shown their commitment and passion to those who have been so unfortunate as to find themselves in such difficulties that they end up in our prison estate.
	There are a number of issues on which we all agree. I hope that I will be able to answer many of the questions that have been raised. I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that if I do not give him a specific answer to some of the issues he raises I shall indeed write to him, as I intend to write on the two specific questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about the Government's response to the reports.
	In the face of the rising population levels, suicide prevention efforts are proceeding with unprecedented energy and commitment, and with some success. This year, despite the rise in population, self-inflicted deaths are 25 per cent down compared with 2004; there were 64, three of which were women, against 85 which included 13 women. That does not mean that we are in any way complacent. We simply acknowledge that that is the position. Last year's overall rate of 113.7 self inflicted deaths per 100,000 average prison population only narrowly missed the challenging target rate set at 112.8 set alongside the Government's target for reducing suicides in the community.
	I am aware that such annual numbers and rates can be volatile. I think that that was made clear in the comments made by my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Giddens, though for different reasons. It may be that the three-year rate is a much more reliable indicator of underlying trend, but that also has been falling over the past year. At the end of September, it stood at 124.1 self-inflicted deaths per 100,000 of prison population compared with a peak of 135.6 for the three years ending September 2004.
	In this debate there were a number of issues that seemed to attract little dispute and on which we all agree. Perhaps I may outline what they appear to be. First, we all wish to see a reduction in the number of suicides in prison. I view that as one of my top priorities. The rate of self-inflicted deaths in prison is far higher than the rate in the community, although not of people under supervision in the community. Each death carries with it untold heartbreak for the individual's family and friends as well as for prison staff and other prisoners. However, my noble friend Lord Giddens is absolutely right when he points to the fact that the research which we have at the moment does not compare like with like. Therefore we have to be appropriately cautious in dealing with those statistics.
	Secondly, the prison population contains a very high proportion of highly vulnerable individuals with family, relationship, educational, housing and employment difficulties, not to mention the obvious stresses associated with being in custody. Many are struggling to cope with additional various combinations of problems that further increase the likelihood of their self-harming. A number of noble Lords have mentioned the factors that put them at risk whether in prison or not and continue to increase the likelihood of their harming themselves upon release.
	We accept that many of the problems with which prisoners are faced are those which have not been adequately addressed while they were in the community. The need aggressively to attack those causes of crime remain. Many young people who end up in our secure estate are, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made clear, some of our most difficult to deal with, and it is often they who end up in our adult estate.
	Office for National Statistics research in 1998 gave some interesting pointers of that, some of which have already been referred to. Previous self harm and suicide attempts: 44 per cent of women compared with 27 per cent of men on remand had attempted suicide in their lifetimes. Previous abuse: 22 per cent of male remand prisoners who had attempted suicide in the past year had suffered sexual abuse in the past. Drug problems: 55 per cent of those received into prison were problematic drug users, with 80 per cent reporting some history of misuse. Alcohol problems: 63 per cent of sentenced males and 39 per cent of sentenced females were classed as hazardous drinkers in the year before coming into prison. Mental health: 76 per cent of female remands and 50 per cent of male remands were found to suffer from a common mental illness such as depression or anxiety, which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and others. Some 95.5 per cent of prisoners who had had suicidal thoughts in the previous week were found to have a common mental illness, and 15 per cent of female prisoners and 11 per cent of male prisoners were found to suffer from psychosis.
	One of the other factors that worry me is the impact of domestic violence on those figures. As noble Lords will know, I am the Minister responsible for our domestic violence policy. Some 46 per cent of the female offenders under supervision have been identified as suffering from a history of domestic violence. So all the trenchant efforts that we have made in reducing domestic violence in the community will and should have a dramatic effect on the numbers of women and men and children who are subjected to domestic violence and then find themselves no longer victims but perpetrators of other offences in the community. I was delighted this week to announce the launch of the 25 specialist courts for domestic violence and, today, an additional £1 million to enable us to take that programme even further so that we have specialised courts across the country. We have already found that addressing those issues means that people get the domestic violence issue dealt with more effectively. If we do that, we might drive down some of these numbers.
	The things we are doing in prisons are not the only things we need to look at. We need to look at all the issues across the piece: what we are doing for Sure Start, Connexions, education, after school clubs, which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elton; what we are doing to drive down domestic violence, to rehouse people, to educate them better and to get them jobs. All of that is significant in our work. As my noble friend Lord Giddens said, we bear in mind that the statistics that we have, and the proper interpretation that we put upon them, has to be approached with a deal of caution.
	Thirdly, the current high population levels are a concern. That theme ran through every speech. The number of people in prison in England and Wales reached a new all time high of 77,758 on 20 October. Managing such numbers can lead to an increase in transfers between prisons—we have referred to that—itself a time of heightened risk. More people being received into custody means that some prisoners are located further from home, which in turn may mean that their access to familial or social support is affected. More prisoners being remanded to prison results in prisons processing large and variable numbers of prisoners, often arriving late in the day, which may reduce the time staff can spend with individual prisoners on care and risk assessment. Overcrowding can result in an increase in the length of time prisoners are locked up in their cells rather than engaged in regime activities, association and other purposeful activity. These factors together increase the distress which we know from research by the University of Cambridge is directly related to suicide rates. All of that was echoed in each speech made by noble Lords. I do not name all noble Lords as I cannot leave anyone out in that regard.
	This is not a straightforward matter. Overcrowding alone does not explain why there are self-inflicted deaths in prisons. I have mentioned the known risk factors that offenders bring with them into prison. Morven Leese of the Institute of Psychiatry has conducted research looking at the relative importance of different establishment factors, including overcrowding, in predicting rates of self-inflicted death across the estate. Dr Leese has found that higher self-inflicted death rates were associated with particularly high levels of overcrowding in individual prisons, as were high rates of positive drug tests and lower levels of purposeful activity and completed offender behaviour programmes. We take all of that into account.
	Another piece of evidence is that prisons with the highest rates of "churn" or turnover tend to have the highest rates of self-inflicted deaths—an issue mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. But these prisons also tend to be locals, which have the largest proportions of prisoners displaying key risk factors. Coming back to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Giddens on caution, what can we make of that?
	My noble friend Lord Giddens rightly pointed out that cell sharing is a known protective factor against suicide. A number of noble Lords mentioned that. Although I should make it clear that I am not promoting two or three prisoners sharing cells that were certified for one, not all cell sharing is disadvantageous. That is all I intend to say on that point. It just shows how complex the matter is. The doubling-up of an at-risk prisoner with a cellmate can help to reduce feelings of loneliness and provide both with someone to talk to. Cellmates can also inform staff if they are particularly worried about their companion, although, of course, it remains the ultimate responsibility of staff to deal with those matters. I reassure the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Worcester and the Bishop of Leicester and my noble friend Lord Giddens that we absolutely accept the importance of the role played by chaplaincy teams for staff and prisoners. We agree with what was said by the right reverend Prelates in that regard. The National Offender Management Service actively seeks the involvement of chaplaincy teams in the development of, and training programmes for, the new family liaison officers being introduced in prisons together with—as many noble Lords will know—the development of community chaplaincies so there is a follow-on after the person leaves prison.
	As has been said, vulnerability can be both imported from the outside world when a prisoner enters custody or it can be a product of the experience of imprisonment. While we may have little control over the former, although we can do our best to help prisoners with the issues with which they arrive in custody, we are working hard to combat the latter and to ensure, as far as is possible, that the experience of imprisonment does not become a trigger factor for vulnerability. This includes the broad, integrated and evidence based prisoner suicide prevention strategy that we have in place, reducing distress for all prisoners, not only those identified as being at risk of suicide or self-harm, embedding suicide prevention as a current through every area of prison life, including detoxification, decency, healthcare, purposeful activity, staff training and the built environment. Every prisoner benefits and fewer are likely to turn to harming and killing themselves if we can change the general ethos.
	I am pleased to say a little more about assessment, care in custody and teamwork as I was invited to do by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and, I hope, reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, that work on this has been undertaken aggressively. The prisoner suicide prevention strategy seeks to provide the best possible care to those who we know to be at particular risk of suicide and self-harm. The key intervention currently being introduced across public and private prisons alike is the new care planning system for at risk prisoners, ACCT. ACCT aims to improve the quality of care by introducing flexible care planning that is prisoner centred, supported by improved staff training in assessing and understanding at-risk prisoners. ACCT bridges the crucial interrelationship between suicide prevention and mental healthcare provision; for example, by linking with reception screening, mental health awareness training and mental health in-reach, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and was asked about by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Significantly, the implementation is taking place in close partnership with regional NIMHE (National Institute for Mental Health in England).
	I am confident that ACCT will have a positive impact on the care provided to vulnerable at-risk individuals. The reason we have given a time frame is that the training involved is very important. We need properly to train all the people who are going to operate it. The multi-disciplinary way in which it is being operated is an advantage, and it is successful. However, I would hate the noble Baroness to think that it is not being pushed as hard and as fast as we possibly can. We understand its importance. Already there are early signs of improvements in prisons that are early implementers of ACCT. Since April 2005 there has been a 5 per cent drop in the rolling three year numbers of annual self-inflicted deaths in the 30 establishments now using the new system, with the five ACCT pilots seeing a 10 per cent drop since starting in January 2004.
	While ACCT is a great example of joint prisons/NHS working, the new primary care trusts/prison partnerships have not been in effect long enough for us to have any more than anecdotal evidence that they are really making a wider difference. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for enumerating the things that we are doing in that regard and for the praise that they rightly gave to all those practitioners who are trying to implement this. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, asked whether this was a question of bureaucracy or numbers. We are doing something very new. It will take time. I personally celebrate the fact that it is at last being done and that we can monitor it, evaluate it and make sure that it is implemented across the piece. We are already seeing significant improvements. To make significant improvements to the mental health services available within prisons through the development of new, NHS mental health in-reach services backed by significant new investment, in-reach teams are now operating at 102 establishments and should become available by April 2006 within all prison establishments where the need for them has been identified.
	Mental health awareness training for prison officers is being implemented as a long-term strategy to raise the effectiveness of discipline of staff in understanding, engaging and giving support in the care and management of prisoners with mental problems, and to ensure that prisoners assessed as too ill to remain in prison can be transferred to a hospital setting under the Mental Health Act. Our aspiration is for each individual who should be properly placed in the NHS rather than the prison estate to be so placed. That aspiration is absolutely shared by the NHS.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in effect asked about learning the lessons from history. I reassure him that we are doing so. Learning lessons and preventing reoccurrence of mistakes is developing into a key part of the ongoing strategy, as reports of the independent investigations into death in custody by the prison and probation ombudsman come on stream. Improving links with the IPCC and other sectors—the sharing of lessons learnt and experience—will help to reduce deaths. I assure the House that moving people only when it is absolutely necessary is very much part of the lessons that we are learning. The National Offender Management Service is not a matter of privatisation, contrary to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. It is not the abolition of the public service. We need the public service to continue, but we need the burden to be shared more broadly with others able to share it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Elton, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others raised issues in relation to juveniles. Reflecting their needs and vulnerabilities, the general prisoner suicide prevention strategy contains a specific strategy for juvenile prisoners. That focuses on increasing activity within regimes, improved first night/reception facilities, child protection training, improvement of healthcare centres and mental health provision, support groups for those who self-harm, and promotion of peer support for juveniles through insider schemes. Noble Lords will know the good work done by listeners and others, and the use of personal officers.
	Overcrowding and the consequent need to move prisoners around, sometimes at short notice, inevitably has its effects on prisoners' sense of well-being, but we are doing much to mitigate its worst effects. The visits that I have made to prison establishments have reinforced my belief in the dedication and professionalism shown by prison staff on a day-to-day basis in caring for a very vulnerable group of individuals. I add my voice to those who commend them for that work. A testament to it is the number of prisoners' lives saved by prison staff. Approximately 1,500 prisoners thought to be at particular risk of harming themselves are successfully kept safe in any given month, while almost 150 prisoners were resuscitated last year alone. I have also seen for myself prisoners' lives turned around.
	There is a huge amount to do but I am confident that, through joint working, we shall make it a success. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, says about a royal commission; all that I can do is reassure him that the work that we are doing now looks very like a commission's work.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, apart from expressing my delight at seeing the Minister back, might I ask her if she can help on a particular point?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble and learned Lord is speaking out of order. We have to hear very briefly from the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, so that the next debate can take place.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. They have vast experience, which is reflected in their contributions. I also thank the Minister for her response. It is perfectly obvious from the debate that many of us have differing views on this complex matter, but I start from the point that even a single death is unacceptable—it is one too many. Let us hope that today's debate gives us the renewed urgency mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, so that we can tackle this complex issue with policies that will at least help us in terms of alleviating and, to an extent, eliminating deaths when people are in the state's custody. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House-building Programme

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: rose to call attention to the environmental and social consequences of the Government's house-building programme; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, housing is one of the key issues facing the Government. I am delighted that we have such a long list of distinguished speakers to participate in today's debate, and that we will finish in time to go along and hear the results of the other important piece of parliamentary business going on today. As the opening speaker, I would like to draw a broad canvas on which other noble Lords can bring their interests and expertise to bear. I am sure that what we hear today will give us all much food for thought.
	According to the IPPR, there are 120,000 homeless households nationally. Shelter estimates that 110,000 children are living in temporary accommodation. When you add to that the misery of the overcrowding which is a fact of life for many, the substandard accommodation which is a reality for many more families, and the financial problems of people who pay higher housing costs than they can reasonably afford to meet, the scale of the problem becomes evident. We know that the problems that face society today are multiple and complex, but poor housing is one the fundamentals that leads to social exclusion, deprivation and poor life chances. One might think that the problem was that we had a shortage of housing in this country. However, analysis of the 2001 census has shown that there are in fact 3.7 million more dwellings in this country than there are households. We do not have too few houses but too many in the wrong place, at the wrong price and in the wrong condition.
	There has of course been a home ownership revolution in the past 30 years, universally acknowledged as a welcome development. But as the Government's own figures show, while in 1988 half of all households could afford to buy their own home, now only 37 per cent can do so. Since 1997 salaries have risen by 18 per cent while house prices have gone up 125 per cent. When I bought my first home almost 25 years ago, there was much debate about whether lenders were wise to offer mortgages three times the household salary. Now the house price to earnings ratio in the south-west is 9.5:1. In parts of my home region of East Anglia, there are hot spots where the ratio is 11:1. Talk is often centred on property prices in London and the south-east, but the problem extends to hot spots throughout the United Kingdom. It is becoming more and more difficult for young people to get a foot on the housing ladder, and I shudder to think how much more difficult it will be for graduates when they emerge from university with large personal debts before they even contemplate getting mortgages. And it is not exclusively a young person's problem. Something like 550,000 over-65s are still paying off mortgages, because of either over-commitments early on or endowment shortfalls.
	I recently had the experience of reading the ODPM consultation document Planning for Housing Provision. The kindest thing that I can say about it is that it is without doubt the worst document of its kind that I have ever read, and the competition is fairly fierce. You do not have to take my word for it as, last Friday, Simon Jenkins described it as,
	"a disgrace to the English language and the British civil service",
	and "Airhead Blairism". It certainly falls into the trap of confusing market demand for housing with genuine housing need. The danger of such a simplistic approach of providing market housing is that it tends to provide more and larger houses for those already well housed, but no real benefit to people in genuine housing need.
	The social and demographic changes which have increased demand for housing are well known. People are living longer and independently, families are breaking up, and there is an increase in the number of single people of all ages. The flexible job market in which we take such a pride has a number of effects, as the average stay in a job is reduced now to three years, and people need housing mobility. Second homes are now no longer the preserve of the very wealthy, and it is estimated that there are about 250,000 of them.
	In some rural areas, the entire fabric of the community has been altered by the presence of large numbers of second homes. In the village of East Portlemouth in the Devon district of South Hams, 60 per cent of the properties are holiday homes, as are 45 per cent of those in Salcombe. At the other end of the spectrum, the estate agents, Savills, has identified a growing trend towards city-centre pieds-à-terre. A response to what is seen as the poor quality of life in cities is to locate the main family home elsewhere and to live in the city during the week. Savills estimates that 25 per cent of the houses in Kensington and Chelsea are second homes.
	The buy-to-let phenomenon looks set to grow, according to market analysts. The introduction of self-invested pensions next year will provide a boost to that, although the Council of Mortgage Lenders is saying that the industry does not believe that the Government have done enough to warn people about the pros and cons of putting residential properties into personal pensions.
	So the question facing the Government is not just that of absolute numbers of houses but of their genuine affordability, and there are a number of ways in which that might be addressed. We are still waiting for the Government's detailed response to the Barker review, but on these Benches we are unconvinced by the proposition that house price levels should be used as the main determinant of planning policy. The IPPR suggests that the Barker methodology is simply not sufficiently robust to identify whether an increase in the level of house building, as proposed by the Government, would do anything significantly to reduce house prices. It goes on to say that it is the macro-economic backdrop, such as inflation, interest rates and tax regimes, and not the amount of building which significantly alters house price levels. Indeed, as only one in 10 of all house sales involves a new build, massive increases in the number of houses built would be needed to affect the market.
	The CPRE also fundamentally disagrees with Barker, arguing that, were house prices to rise above the average in a particular area, local authorities would be forced to abandon environment and infrastructure considerations because they would be under pressure to bring more land on stream. I do not know a single planning expert who believes that building more houses is, by itself, the way to make housing more affordable.
	Of course, the Government face a further conundrum. If they tried to manage house prices by increasing demand, that would have a devastating impact on the majority who are already home owners. We know that there are high levels of personal debt among those already in the market, sustained in the main by the comfort blanket of rising house prices.
	Government policy with regard to affordable housing is very much focused on home ownership. In a recent speech, David Miliband reiterated the Government's ambition further to increase the levels of home ownership. But the Government have to think hard about how high it is practically possible to aim in this regard. It will require an increasing amount of government subsidy to push home ownership beyond a certain point, and it must be asked whether the money would not be better invested in alternative forms of tenure. Recent research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has shown that 1.25 million families are neither able to afford to buy the cheapest properties in their area nor are they poor enough to qualify for housing benefit. It is for those people that the socially rented sector traditionally came into play.
	It is certainly true that most people aspire to own their own home. But that is at least in part because the alternatives are so dire. The socially rented sector is scarce, and in the private sector accommodation is expensive and insecure. Over the past two decades, while house building for purchase has remained static, there has been a dramatic fall in the number of properties for rent. In 1985, 25,000 homes were built in the socially rented sector. That was down to 14,000 in 2003. Against that, last year alone, 67,000 houses were lost through the right to buy. The housing waiting list has gone up by 38 per cent since 2000.
	Britain is unusual among European nations in that it has very low levels of institutional investment in the rented sector. Most private rented homes here belong to individual landlords. They manage very few properties and have a small capital base. Both Barker and, before her, the Rogers report, recommended taxation and regulatory change to enable institutional investment in property. Perhaps the Minister could say a little more about whether there are proposals for estate investment trusts along the US model.
	The demographic changes to which I referred earlier have led to an 18 per cent growth in the number of people living in rented accommodation. For the majority, the preference would be for security of tenure with a local authority or housing association. Those organisations can certainly cater for a broader range of tenant and, more importantly, can invest in a wider range of neighbourhood services. They have a track record of taking the lead in regeneration and renewal projects. I know that we will hear more about this aspect of sustainable community development from my noble friend Lady Falkner when she replies to the debate.
	Can the Minister say why the Government are so determined to press on with their policy of removing council houses from local authority control? Ballots all over the country have shown that people have an overwhelming preference to remain as council tenants, even given the fact that the playing field is now so unlevel in terms of regulations and economic options. For a Government so committed to the choice agenda, why are they so determined not to allow council house tenants the freedom to choose?
	Whatever the form of tenure, we need to consider the planning system. A recent piece of academic research reported in a Policy Exchange magazine asserts that it is the centralised system of planning in England which is restricting the supply of new land for housing. Countries such as Australia and Ireland, which have similar centralised planning systems, are also suffering from housing shortages. In countries such as Germany and Switzerland with more devolved systems, land is often developed more speedily because local planners have to engage with their local communities at an early stage. They are not attempting to impose unwanted development, and therefore the development is more welcome when it comes along.
	Great strides have been made in urban development and the use of brownfield land, but we still have a long way to go. Cities are often seen as places to work and shop rather than where people aspire to live. The Government's figures issued last week show that there are some 700,000 empty properties in the UK and many hundreds of thousands more above shops. The tax regime still favours new build over repair and renovation, and I hope that the Government will seriously consider whether this is the right policy message.
	The house-building programme will have a significant environmental impact, and I hope that we will hear more of this from other noble Lords. In the Thames Gateway flooding is a particular risk, while in the south-east it is water supply which is problematic. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors is calling on the Government to demonstrate their commitment to funding the necessary remedial measures.
	The Government aim to reduce CO2; emissions to 60 per cent of 2003 levels by 2050. By then, we will have something like 9 million extra houses if they all go ahead as planned. Much tougher and better enforced building regulations will be needed if the CO2; targets are to be met. But the environment Select Committee in another place has said that there is little evidence of the energy efficiency standards of the building regulations being met.
	My noble friend Lord Bradshaw will talk more about the transport impacts of the house-building programme, and so I need say little more here except to flag up that in the key growth area, such as the Thames Gateway, the programme will stall if the transport needs are not met, and met soon. There is no evidence yet that the Government have a coherent view on how these projects are to be funded. In my own region in the east of England, the regional planning authority has withdrawn its own housing plan because of lack of government investment in infrastructure.
	Local authorities are becoming much better at dealing with that within the limited means at their disposal. In Liberal Democrat-controlled Milton Keynes, a partnership between the council, English Partnerships and developers is generating a "roof tax" amounting to some £18,000 per house. This comes from developers and will be used to cover the cost of necessary infrastructure.
	The decisions made by the Government at all levels in the near future will impact on all of us, whether the issue is demolition of properties in northern cities, protection of the countryside or urban regeneration or involves sustaining local communities in attractive areas. I very much look forward to hearing the contributions of all noble Lords today, including the response of the Minister, which I know will give us much food for thought. I beg to move for Papers.

Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I am going to concentrate on the social effects of the Government's house-building programme. For millions of us, our housing determines what kind of lives we can lead. It determines whether we can get in and out of our homes, go to work or to the shops, whether we can look after ourselves, wash or go to the loo, and whether we can fulfil our social roles—put our children to bed, feed our families, attend a family function or even visit a dying friend.
	You need spend only a short time in a spinal injuries unit if you want a rapid lesson in the crucial part that housing plays in our social policy. The lottery of what kind of home you happened to be living in when you met your accident has stark effects. One person will go straight back home, rejoin their family and get on with their lives. Another will never see their home again—they face living in an institution for an intolerable length of time while the soul-destroying search for accessible housing goes on, uprooting their families or, for some, losing their families altogether.
	That is the rapid lesson, but it is one which we learn more slowly and more obstinately as we grow older, as we find that we cannot quite manage the steps at the front of the house or the stairs to get up to the bathroom and to bed. But we now have a chance to make a sizeable impact on the accessibility of our housing stock if we take decisive action and I urge my noble friend the Minister to ensure that this is kept at the forefront of our housing policy.
	The Deputy Prime Minister announced in his July 2002 statement, echoed in the communities plan, that there was potential for 200,000 homes to be provided additional to the current plans by 2016. However, recent research published by the Town and Country Planning Association, titled Housing the Next Generation: Household growth, housing demand and housing requirements, by Alan Holmans with Christine Whitehead, pointed out that the number of households can be expected to rise by about 3.5 million between 2001 and 2021. That is an increase of around 175,000 households per annum.
	It is said that the new building is also required to replace dwellings that are demolished, such as in regeneration areas, and to improve housing conditions by meeting the backlog of unmet housing need. For instance, in relation to disabled people, the ODPM 2005 survey of English Housing 2003–04, states that 1.4 million disabled people in England are in need of specially adapted accommodation. Of this total, nearly one quarter—320,000 disabled people—are currently living in unsuitable housing.
	The report concludes that in total we are going to need upwards of 200,000 new homes per annum. But the research also found that the single biggest factor in the projected increase in the number of households—between 25 and 30 per cent—was the fact that people are living longer. Given the strong correlation between ageing and impairment is not enough simply to build 200,000 new homes per year. We will need to build 200,000 accessible lifetime homes per year.
	Moreover, we need more wheelchair accessible homes. Already, according to research by the John Grooms housing association, there is a countrywide shortfall of 300,000 wheelchair homes and again this will augment significantly in the years to 2021. However, if the Government would follow the GLA's lead and ensure that all the new houses in the growth areas and indeed elsewhere are built to the lifetime homes standard, with at least 10 per cent built to be wheelchair accessible, the impact would be profound.
	As I hope I have made clear, for disabled people accessible housing means independence, better health and the ability to compete for jobs in the open labour market on a more level playing field. Such a transformation in the lives of disabled people and their families will have economic as well as social benefits. As the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit report, Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People, points out:
	"Improving the suitability of new-build and renovated homes for disabled people would also help reduce future public expenditure on housing adaptations, equipment and care services. Adopting lifetime homes standards would save, on average, £1,100 per dwelling on the cost of major adaptations while the average cost of building a three-bedroom, five-person house to lifetime homes standards was calculated to cost an additional £100 to £300 per dwelling, in 1997 prices. This was calculated to be a total saving of £39 million per year on major adaptations. Further savings would also be made in terms of expenditure on minor adaptations and equipment, care services, hospital stays and temporary residential care. Lifetime Homes Standards apply to all age groups, including children and elderly people, so the potential savings would be significant".
	The future demand and the potential cost savings are clear, but where is the sense of urgency? The Government have yet to make building to the lifetime homes standard mandatory. New housing schemes will in due course need to be accompanied by access statements, demonstrating how access to the development for disabled people has been addressed. But I am aware that there are serious concerns that the new regime will not interpret access widely enough. A commitment was also given during the passage of the latest Planning Act that the Government would revise Part M of the building regulations, which currently require only "visitability" standards, but again disability organisations are concerned that there appears to be an insufficient sense of urgency. And this is not just a building regulations issue; it is critically also a planning issue and we need to see this reflected in the Government's planning policy statement on housing, which should also specify a minimum of 10 per cent of new housing to be wheelchair accessible.
	I know that my noble friend the Minister will be concerned that progress is made, and made rapidly, and I hope that she will be able to give the House an assurance that these issues will be expedited and that her department understands the urgency of the matter. If we do not address these issues now, the consequences will be grave.
	The Government's house-building programme has come under attack from those who simply reject any responsibility towards the homeless and those in housing need, preferring to retreat into their nimby comfort zone, and from those who think it will inevitably eat up the greenbelt and spell ecological disaster. I believe that both are equally misguided. We cannot run away from housing need—that would indeed be a social and economic disaster. Instead, we need to face up to what needs to be done and build all the new homes that need to be built. We need to build them all to the lifetime homes standard, with a specific proportion fully wheelchair accessible, and ensure that the new developments have the necessary infrastructure, investment and social mix that will enable them to thrive.
	We could deliver the active, inclusive, safe, well designed and built, well connected, thriving sustainable communities that the Government have made the central goal of their house-building programme. That is a vision that disabled people would really think was worth fighting for. And if the Government embrace inclusive housing as the way of the future and take all the necessary steps to deliver new homes that are accessible and adaptable, they will find the disability movement a powerful ally in defending and delivering the sustainable communities plan.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on securing this important and timely debate. Although not neighbours in the political sense, we are most certainly neighbours in the geographical sense, originating from two fine counties with a shared border and much shared history. Indeed, the noble Baroness, in her excellent speech, referred to many of the problems and concerns stemming from the Government's house-building programme that will have a similar effect upon my own county of Essex. Perhaps this is an opportune moment to declare an interest as the leader of Essex County Council, as many Members know. I shall be speaking a fair bit today about the problems of Essex.
	In nearly 30 years of being a member of that council, I cannot remember a more serious threat to the way of life of the people of Essex and the concerns that exist over the Government's plans for mass house building. It is my intention to return to the particular circumstances facing Essex a little later as I believe that the challenges facing my own county serve as an example of what is happening over much of the country, particularly in the south east.
	I want to begin by stating that the need for new houses is of course unquestionable. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to the fact that there are many houses, but we must recognise that some of them are in the wrong place. I shall return to that issue. People are living longer and more are living on their own. We are only too aware of the problems faced by many young people who simply cannot afford to get a foot on the housing property ladder, not just in the south east but increasingly in all parts of the country which have seen property values rocket in recent years.
	We are equally aware of the problems facing many low-income public servants. We have a job to recruit people such as social workers in our counties in the south east because of the cost of housing. I thank the Minister for being involved with us in Essex, because however many houses we have, the design of them needs to be right and she is helping us to launch a design guide. However many houses we have and whatever the problems, they need to be designed right for the disabled and the elderly. I thank her for being involved in considering the design of houses with us.
	Clearly, the supply of houses in the right places has fallen well below the rate of demand. In fact, the level of new builds is at its lowest since the war. We on these Benches are not anti-development nor anti-new houses, but we want to make certain that the policy is well thought out. We are opposed to the arbitrary and misguided plans that this Government have for the creation of vast new communities, possibly destroying large sections of green belt, going against the wishes of local people and local communities and without enough thinking about the economic independence of these new communities or the required infrastructure—to which I shall return—needed to allow them to thrive. That is what we are opposed to.
	The Government optimistically refer to this strategy as a sustainable communities plan. That is a rather misguided description. As I will describe later, that plan will have a profoundly negative impact on existing communities from an economic, social and environmental aspect. Regrettably, there is virtually nothing that I can think that redeems these plans from the clutches of possible disaster.
	It is perhaps worth mentioning the flip side of these plans, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said: plans that involve the destruction of significant swathes of existing housing in many northern cities. One does not need to be a genius to work out that there is something fundamentally wrong in the overall strategy when, with one hand, we are destroying perfectly usable housing only to create new properties at the risk of existing communities and green belt.
	Indeed, noble Lords may be interested to learn that only on Monday we had Jane Kennedy—a Minister, I believe—telling a public inquiry that plans to raze 10,000 terrace properties in her Liverpool constituency amounted to "social cleansing" of her constituents. This reveals disquiet within the Government about the Deputy Prime Minister's housing market renewal scheme. If the Government are not agreed, what hope is there for the rest of us?
	I now turn to the situation facing my county of Essex. Under the Government's plans, Essex will be expected to take at least 110,000 new houses over the next 15 years, although the figure is still very much in dispute, with the regional assembly demanding that the county build 131,000. We will not go back to the point about the unelected, unaccountable regional assemblies, but I would rather have local people deciding such matters than regional assemblies, which are not elected and are unpopular in my part of the world.
	The population increase in Essex alone is equivalent to the entire population of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Since we lost the London boroughs about 40 years ago, Essex has nearly trebled in population. So beside the trebling of the population since we lost the London boroughs, we will now take the equivalent of the city of Newcastle.
	Let me give you some idea of the costs and consequences involved in that. The bill for supporting the Government's plans for that new housing development is likely to reach £13 billion in capital costs. Nearly £5 billion will be needed for the land alone for those houses. We already have about a £2 billion infrastructure deficit in Essex because of all the new houses since 1964. Yet the largest single area of investment required will be the improvement of transport infrastructure, which will cost at least £5 billion. That excludes the extensive improvements to the rail system to the west of the county. Indeed, at the current rate of spending it will take 100 years to catch up with what we have already done. That comes at a time when government support for transport funding in the region has been reduced. The Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail have both confirmed that they cannot fund the majority of the region's proposed rail schemes.
	We estimate that the public sector will have to find about £2.5 billion each year in ongoing revenue costs. The largest ongoing revenue cost will be new schools, with a bill of about £1 billion each year. We of course will need new hospitals, GPs, fire and police stations, care and social workers, to name but a few, all of whom will need to be funded from somewhere. Increases in local tax revenue will fund the majority of that increase, but there will be a shortfall of almost £300 million per year. That would mean an increase to Essex council taxpayers of about 43 per cent, just to fund all those new people.
	We have recently published a report with independent help and a lot of thought and we will submit it to the examination of the east of England draft plan, which will be heard soon. The report suggests that the development proposals outlined in our draft plan are unrealistic and unaffordable and we call for a plan that plans, monitors and manages the increase in housing. I ask the Minister to reply to that. We have not had that from the Government and I want them to think about how to do that.
	My eight minutes have run out. I would just like to say that the extra waste disposal in Essex would be about 1 million tonnes a year. We have enough problem disposing of our waste at present. All those infrastructure costs are being placed on local authorities without the Government planning for it. I hope that the Minister can respond to some of those issues when she winds up.

Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this debate and for giving us another opportunity to discuss this very important subject. I intend to focus my remarks this afternoon on the working of the green belt—a concept first established in 1955 and thus celebrating its 50th birthday this year. First, I must declare an interest as a landowner within the green belt in Hertfordshire.
	Few people would quarrel with the objectives of the green belt. They are set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The principal objectives are to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; and to preserve the countryside. During the past 50 years, those objectives have largely been achieved. However, there has been a downside. The rigid application of green belt designation has had the effect of freezing all development in rural villages and hamlets within the green belt boundaries. That has put a stop to the natural evolution of rural communities, which has been going on for centuries. Why, one might ask, should all development have been frozen in 1955? What was so special about 1955?
	The lack of natural evolution has contributed to the shortage of housing and to the huge rise in prices of existing stock. With the end of council house building, there has been a growing shortage of affordable housing. Villages have become commuter dormitories and village shops and post offices have closed down.
	As I said, few people can object to the basic principles of the green belt. The problem is its blanket application. Paragraph 1.7 of PPG2 states:
	"the quality of the landscape is not relevant to the inclusion of land within a green belt".
	If it is within the green belt boundaries; that is, it is green belt. There is no argument. I find that very hard to accept. That is inflexibility carried to extremes. Within the green belt, there are numerous small and medium-sized sites where appropriate, well designed development would in no way compromise the green belt objectives. It could ease the problems of housing supply; provide much-needed affordable housing; and permit a restart to the natural process of evolution of small rural communities.
	I fail to understand the Government's refusal to contemplate any flexibility in green belt designation. Surely guidance could be given to local planning authorities to assess planning applications within the green belt on their individual merits as to design, quality, need and impact on green belt objectives. If the Government continue to object to all flexibility on this issue, I hope that the Minister will at least be able to give us a logical explanation for its reasons.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in the course of this debate I will raise a number of issues with the Minister about the direction of Government policy in housing. Before I do that, I put on record the tremendous progress that has been made under this Government in relation particularly to the quality of local government housing. Nearly £20 billion has been allocated for refurbishment and improvement of local authority housing, after years of neglect under previous administrations. A million fewer houses now fail to meet the decent homes standard. There have been improvements in energy efficiency standards, which I am now glad to see that ODPM is speeding up, contrary to what I thought when I left office. I thought that I had a difficulty with ODPM, but it has exceeded my expectations. Other people have criticised it a bit, but it is a major contribution towards our climate change objectives, as laid down in the Private Member's Bill that we dealt with last year. It has also, in parallel, improved the quality of housing in relation to fuel poverty, with 1.5 million houses being treated one way and another under that programme.
	We have a record to be proud of, but we have some problems. The problem is essentially with the provision of affordable housing. The combination of market failure as regards some of the decisions and priorities of planning authorities, and developers' preferences in this area, to some extent aggravated by aspects of Government policy, mean that the lack of affordable housing in large parts of our community is getting worse. The Minister's colleague, Yvette Cooper, wrote in the Guardian in response to Simon Jenkins's article—to which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has already referred—that the real problem is that we are likely to have 50 per cent more households in two decades' time, and we are building 30 per cent fewer houses than we were a decade and a half ago.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to the article by Simon Jenkins. I wonder whether he saw the reply by the Minister, Yvette Cooper, in the Guardian earlier this week, in which she not only gave a devastating reply, but she was also absolutely right.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, that was precisely what I was referring to; I am absolutely at one with my noble friend. The second point that Yvette Cooper made was that not only are we building too few new-build houses and bringing too few new properties to the market, but it is also the case that 50 per cent of couples now can probably afford a house. That is low enough, but on present trends less than one third will be able to do so in a decade or two's time. We therefore need more houses, but we do not need haciendas in Surrey. We need houses that people can afford in places where they want to live and work.
	We also need to ensure that the balance of housing is towards the affordable end. I argue for a more positive role in relation to council housing and local authorities in this area, but lest that be seen as an old Labour rant, I am also in favour of huge flexibility in this area. I was in favour of the right to buy, provided that the housing stock grows at the same time to meet social provision. I am in favour of bringing private management and private money into what has been the social housing area. I am an admirer of the role of housing associations, but at the end of the day there is still a shortfall in the provision of affordable housing for rent. Part of that has been accomplished and accompanied by some disparaging of council housing and council tenants. I know that a lot of local authorities were pretty poor at managing housing stock in the past, but some of the ways in which we have shifted it to stock transfers and ALMOs has over-ridden the views of the tenants. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned, the tenants have not been faced with a level playing field in the kind of vote or poll, which, if it were in an emerging democracy, would raise a few queries.
	Nevertheless, there have been successful ALMOs and successful stock transfers, and I am the first to recognise that. There have also been other cases when ALMOs and stock transferees have proved equally, if not more, bureaucratic and unresponsive to their tenants and their lessees than the pre-existing local authorities.
	I have knowledge of two areas; central London and south-west rural areas. I accept that the whole of the country is not the same, but many other cities have similar problems to central London, and many other rural areas have similar problems to the south west. In addition to the lack of building of social housing and the lack of refurbishment of existing buildings to bring affordable rented housing to the market, there has been one other development—rent restructuring—which has not been referred to so far. I can understand certain motivations for that policy, but there is a formula based on private rents in the area plus incomes in the area, so social housing rents would rise. The logical conclusion of that, if it were not dampened, would be a threat to the mixed communities that we have in central London, for example.
	Noble Lords will be familiar with the area round here, where Victorian benevolent societies, followed by the LCC, and the local authorities, followed by modern housing authorities have placed relatively low-cost housing in areas of high affluence in Chelsea and Westminster, for example. But if we move to a situation where rents rise too much in the social housing area, the only people who will occupy social housing will be those on housing benefit. Instead of the Government subsidising the building and the bringing of social housing to the market, they will be doing it through the social security system, and we all know that there are serious problems with housing benefit in the first place.
	It is true that the Government have rightly protected to a large extent the existing tenants, but there is a real problem with new tenancies when people such as key workers want to come to work in central London and their rents will rise to probably unaffordable levels. Indeed, that is a problem with existing tenants. I know of a problem not far from here involving two households: one is a pensioner who does part-time work and one a single mother who works likewise. One has too much accommodation and one too little. If they swapped, the net effect would be that the combined rents would go up by £300 because they would be treated as new tenants. That is not good management of our existing stock, and we ought to be focusing not only on new build and bringing new property to the affordable market but also on ensuring that we manage the existing stock and existing tenants correctly. Otherwise, the policy will undermine our policies on poverty eradication, key workers and race relations.
	Country areas have already been referred to, and we have a situation where young people and young couples cannot afford to live in the villages and towns where their families live and where they would like to work. So we have relatively rich people commuting from the villages to the big towns, and relatively poor people commuting from big towns to work in service industries in villages. We have no provision for the nurse, the policeman or the shop assistant being able to live in many of our rural villages, not only in the south west but up and down the country.
	I should like to make four quick suggestions to the Minister, although my time is running out. First, we should ensure that planning authorities in London and other stress areas have a requirement on every planning development to provide affordable housing for rent, and not just affordable housing, which often in London means flats for £300,000. Secondly, the rent restructuring review that is already going on should slow down the process or at least dampen it for new tenants as well as existing tenants. Thirdly, in country areas we should provide affordable housing for part-rent, part-buy, particularly for those who already have families or jobs in the area. Fourthly, we should look at the way in which we subsidise housing through the social security budget, which seems to me a cock- eyed way of the Government recognising their responsibility for providing social housing. If we do all those things, we can make some dent in the problem, although I recognise that it will inevitably be a long-term strategy.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, most of us have to be very grateful that the full weight of the Government's policy on housing affects only a limited, but nevertheless very important, sector of the total housing market. That policy is rightly focused on the desire to increase levels of home ownership by increasing the supply of affordable housing. In particular, it is aimed at first-time buyers and key workers. However, its implementation is a juggernaut of sustained insensitivity, the short-term consequences of which are alarming and the long-term consequences truly frightening. Our grandchildren will condemn this era as we condemn the 1950s.
	With a great flourish, Mr Prescott announced growth areas in the south-east to meet the demand that we know is there. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to that, and I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Best, who will doubtless comment on the excellent latest Rowntree Foundation report on the problem where a market is not met. No environmental or social audit was carried out before Mr Prescott made his announcement. The utility companies were not even consulted. The south-east, particularly London, is vulnerable to any environmental change. All new development should take account of the "urban heat island" effect, which can add up to eight degrees centigrade to the temperature in urban areas.
	Secondly, there is the flooding problem. London already experiences sewer flooding, surface-water flooding and fluvial flooding. Mr Prescott's flagship in the south-east, the Thames Gateway, backed by huge amounts of taxpayers' money, boasts 120,000 new homes within 10 years. Ninety-one per cent of those homes will be built on flood plains and at risk of flooding. In only 24 years time, a new Thames barrier will be needed but, with rising sea levels, the location and design of the new barrage is uncertain, as is the future of those houses. Many of them will be not be insurable, mortgageable or saleable.
	Thirdly, there is a water supply problem. Hotter, drier summers mean more consumption but we are unable to capture and thus store the increasingly common monsoon-like downpours that we get to replenish supplies. That is compounded by too much concrete and tarmac in new developments. Mr Prescott took none of that into account. Building the extra 139,000 homes per year for 15 years, suggested by Kate Barker in her report, could increase carbon dioxide emissions by up to 28.9 million tonnes, up 20 per cent on current levels. Over 9 million tonnes of waste, equivalent to 40 per cent of overall 2001 levels, will be generated. Development on that scale requires a full environmental audit.
	In the north, Mr Prescott ruthlessly imposes his notorious Pathfinder scheme. In Merseyside alone, 20,000 homes, many currently occupied, are due for destruction—that is more than Hitler destroyed during the whole of World War 2 in that area. The cost to the taxpayer of that and their rebuilding is over three times as much as the refurbishment that the private sector could do. The strict rules on development on green belt land have been relaxed, which will please the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. Mr Prescott's rulings as Secretary of State have gradually ensured that green wedges, strategic gaps and rural buffers cannot be long term in the green-belt sense. A Conservative government established the green belt but a Labour Government are going to build on it. Mr Prescott is proud to have upped the density of dwellings per hectare—up by nearly a half. High-density per se is not bad but it requires several things to make it attractive and sustainable. The design and quality needs to be of a very high standard, otherwise it will give rise to issues of noise and anti-social behaviour.
	In another Prescott flagship, Greenwich Millennium Village, apartments costing about £200,000 each are blighted because of poor insulation, despite the developer following Mr Prescott's new "robust details", supposed to enhance soundproofing. The areas around new developments need to be attractive and high quality: in other words, good, safe open space. The developments need to be genuinely mixed communities, with a variety of housing types and tenures—social housing, private rented and freeholds for sale. In contrast, Mr Prescott is pushing for prefab identical buildings. The average home here now offers less dwelling space than most across the Channel, so we have among the pokiest developments in Europe. What are being built are little boxes, little boxes, little boxes, all the same. The profusion of one and two-bedroom flats that have recently been squeezed on to sites are greenless, soulless, poorly designed dormitory extensions that will become the ghettoes of the future.
	Mr Prescott has set arbitrary quotas for cash-hungry local authorities to meet if they are to receive grants. That encourages more compulsory purchase. He has increased regional involvement in the provision of social housing, he is turning old five-year plans into 15-year plans to try to micromanage the market, and he is linking changing house prices to the need for development. Gordon Brown and he are attracted by another form of the discredited development land tax and a second-homes tax. Mr Prescott has introduced regional spatial strategies; local development frameworks; site allocation development plan documents; sustainability appraisals and annual monitoring reports. There has been a step-change to an unprecedented level of centralisation in England, which sidelines local involvement in decision-making. That "dictate and provide" building policy is the failed system used by Soviet planners in the 1950s, but has not Mr Prescott always admired and wanted to emulate them?

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the National Housing Federation, president of the National Housing Forum and a vice-president of the National Home Improvement Council.
	It is eight years since I became a Member of this House, shortly after the new Labour Government came in. I had been the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for housing in another place and I had very high hopes for increased investment in housing and real efforts to improve the quality and quantity of our housing stock. Noble Lords have set out many of the statistics showing how disappointingly slow progress has been, and I am sure that others will do so also. In the short time that I have today, I want to emphasise how important we believe it is not only to increase the supply of new houses but not to neglect the important role of repair to existing housing stock. My noble friend mentioned it in her opening speech.
	Maintenance and modernisation of the present stock is needed and its energy efficiency must be improved. The Government are trying to introduce energy efficiency in new stock, and progress is still slow there. There is now an even more pressing need for energy measures given that rising fuel prices are knocking many people who had been taken out of fuel poverty back into that situation. In our existing housing stock there is a great deal of scope to make better use of the buildings that we have. I refer not only to empty properties, on which, I grant, the Government have taken action—it has been a bit slow but it is there—but to considering changing existing stock, some of which is non-residential and could be made into very suitable homes.
	The majority of today's homes will still be in use in 100 years' time. The latest figures from the English house conditions survey, which covers up to 2003, show a welcome improvement in the nation's housing stock. Nevertheless, too many households must tolerate poor living conditions associated with a century ago. The fact remains that today in England, one of the world's richest nations, 6 million to 7 million homes are still classified as non-decent. It is disappointing that, during a period of relatively favourable economic conditions, improvements in the private-sector housing stock have not been greater. There are still 5.3 million homes in the sector: that is, 30 per cent of our whole housing stock classed as non-decent.
	Without a greater commitment from the Government on those matters, the legacy of a decaying housing stock will remain. My noble friend mentioned value-added tax, the issue that could help in this area, on which I hope the Government will act. There should be a reduction in value-added tax across the board on home improvements. The arguments against it run something like this: there would be a direct loss of tax revenue, and there is a danger that other goods and services will plausibly claim similar treatment, leading to the erosion of the tax base. But expenditure on home improvement and repair has much wider social and environmental effects. They are so wide that I believe special treatment to be justified. Looked at in the round, expenditure on improvement and repair helps to create and keep homes. That is important in today's debate. The quality of badly maintained property decreases so that it no longer meets the rising aspiration of homeowners. In extreme cases, as mentioned, such property must be destroyed and rebuilt, with all the associated environmental consequences: not only the destruction of communities and neighbourhoods but the need to use more materials and energy. Failing to maintain property reduces the net addition to the housing stock that we get from new build. There is also evidence that a reduction in VAT on improvement and repair would reduce the rather large informal economy there is in this area and, therefore, the number of cowboy builders. There is a lot of evidence there, and I do not have time this afternoon to develop that further.
	In her reply, the Minister will no doubt list the areas where VAT has been reduced, but these are not straightforward. As an ordinary member of the public trying to deal with them, I can tell you they are not easy to understand and take advantage of. Many people do not even know about them.
	There are rumours that the Government are looking at this issue, not for the reasons I have outlined, but because Kate Barker has pointed out to them that they need to do something about the tax regime to provide money for the infrastructure for the new communities as part of their house-building programme. I do not mind how it happens, but this is an important issue, and I look forward to hearing whether the Government have any plans in this area.
	Will the Government also look back at what I believe were the successful general improvement areas and housing action areas that were undertaken by local authorities in the 1980s? The Government have had a large windfall from the increase in house prices and the huge amounts of stamp duty that they did not anticipate getting. If some of this money was used for one-off grants to local authorities, they could set up revolving loan funds and base it on the general improvement area idea to administer them. In passing, please do not set up another quango body to do it—use the local authorities that have proved in the past to be able to deal with these matters.
	My main message to the Government is that new build alone is not enough. Others have echoed this, including the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, whose contribution I found interesting, and who touched on this issue. Improvement and repair are also important. They ensure that we have better housing stock, and contribute to keeping up the number of homes.
	I want to end in the last two minutes by touching on a slightly different area. My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, have talked about the problems of housing. The noble Lord talked about these problems in rural areas in the south-west. I now live in the north-east, and can tell the Minister that in Northumberland the sustainability of our small towns and villages is important. Government national policy, however, allows us to build almost nothing in the Berwick area. This means that communities become unviable, and the area is not sustained. There is also the problem of second homes.
	It is disappointing that there is no properly regionally elected body to deal with the spatial strategy, which has been handed down from the Government and is not helping us. Many people, particularly in rural Northumberland, have made representation about this. I hope the Minister will look at it, because sustainability is an important issue in rural areas, and is very different from what is happening in the towns.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: My Lords, I too will touch on the subject of affordable rural housing. I have three points to make. First, the social consequences of doing nothing about the rural housing crisis would be serious. We are beginning to create unbalanced communities. If you are rich, you live in the countryside; if poor, you live in the towns. That does neither towns nor villages any favours at all.
	In my part of the world, in Somerset, we are becoming a haven for the retired. People who are moving in, usually from the south-east, are prepared to pay almost anything for a small cottage in a village. Younger local people—who are, after all, the active members of our village communities, and who are the workers our local businesses depend upon—cannot get a look in. In fact, our young are leaving the county in droves. Key workers, particularly health and social care workers, who will of course be needed more and more to look after the ageing retired population, cannot earn the wages to stay in the countryside. We have not yet seen the nadir of the social consequences of this problem, either for the countryside or for the towns.
	Secondly, the environmental consequences of adding 9,000 to 10,000 new affordable rural homes per year for the next decade would be negligible. Provided that they are added as small developments to each and every community, it amounts to an average of just over one house every two years in each parish in England over the 10-year period. The crucial factor, however, is that these houses must remain in the affordable sector in perpetuity. The right to buy has had devastating consequences in rural England, and to leave it in place—or, worse still, to consider extending its provisions—while this crisis exists is like trying to run a bath while leaving the plug out.
	It does not matter whether these houses involve some form of equity holding or are merely rented. Personally, I believe that the uniquely British emphasis on home ownership is largely overdone. The main point is that tomorrow's young and active generations, trying to live on the lower-than-average rural wages, would have the opportunity to stay in their community and provide a social network and support—and this is very important—for family and friends, who might be ill, old or young—a service that is so expensive if government alone is left to deliver these services. Sustainable communities are made up of sustainable networks. Sustainability is not all about CO2;.
	Thirdly, various groups are now looking at this problem. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has a small group, including various Members of your Lordships' House, that is carrying out a short investigation into solutions. The new Commission for Rural Communities, though not yet statutorily in place, is doing an in-depth countryside analysis, listening to views of people on the ground in every region. Above all of this, pulling it all together, is the new Affordable Rural Housing Commission, chaired by Elinor Goodman, which is due to report to the Government next spring. At that stage, we will have done consultation to the death, and the time for action will be upon us.
	This is a problem that has been hanging over rural Britain since the second half of the 1980s—dare I say it, since not long after the right to buy was introduced. I cannot emphasise enough the social and economic consequences for both rural and urban Britain if we do not deal with the issue properly this time around. The Affordable Rural Housing Commission must come up with some practical solutions. These will have to involve incentives for every local authority, housing agency, local and national charity, perhaps every financial institution, and every landowner, housing association, RSL and parish, to encourage them actively and financially to utilise all the resources at their disposal and pull together to solve this problem.
	The essential tool in this process of pulling together is the Rural Housing Enablers. They are crucial people, and they must remain properly funded. I hope the Minister will give me some commitment on that. Unless these bodies are actively encouraged to pull together, we will never resolve the number one problem for our rural communities in this country.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I too express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for this timely debate. I acknowledge, too, that housing now has a much higher priority on the political agenda than it had a few years ago. I am personally in favour of the growth of the house-building programme, but, as other noble Lords have stated, it is important that it is sustainable—particularly in the south east, where the infrastructure in the widest sense is already considerably overstretched.
	Kate Barker's analysis and report on housing needs, notwithstanding what some may have felt about her recommendations, was overdue and timely. Interestingly, it was published around the same time as Sir Michael Lyons's first review and report on the dispersal of civil service work from London and the south east. The two issues have a link, and I want to say something about that link. The pressures in the south-east on housing can be mitigated to a degree by transferring public service work from the overheated south east, where many public servants have great difficulty getting on to the housing ladder, to other parts of the country such as the north, where there are areas of relatively high unemployment but where it is cheaper to build new housing. In some places, there is a stock of unoccupied older properties that could be refurbished at a lower cost. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, referred to that.
	I was one of those who, for some time, had been pressing the Government to initiate a dispersal programme, in particular to ease the south east's housing and labour markets. I press them to try again and see whether they are doing enough on that front. Given the size of the public service in the south east and the way in which it has expanded over the past six years, the aim to transfer only 20,000 jobs, as proposed, is very modest. When I consider that the Government were persuaded to extend the transfer programme for the 20,000 jobs from the original target date of 2008 to 2010, all I can say is, "Well done, Sir Humphrey". Given the concerns about the environmental and social consequences, which other noble Lords have mentioned, and with the additional pressures and demands that the Olympics will bring to London and the south east in 2012, is my noble friend the Minister content with the dispersal programme? Is there not a case for greater urgency? I certainly hope that she will be willing to check whether the Civil Service and public service estate in London and the south east is being used to provide the maximum opportunity to provide land for building houses and flats.
	I find it inexplicable that many of the insurance companies and financial houses that once had large operations on the south coast have upped and moved to lower-cost locations and there are still big back-office accounting operations, such as the former Inland Revenue offices in Worthing—a high cost area—located in the south-east. That operation covers acres and acres near the centre of Worthing that could be used for housing, particularly social housing. The functions could be equally well performed at lower cost in the provinces, in Scotland or perhaps—closer to the Minister's heart—in Wales. I hear that, as the former Inland Revenue and HM Customs integrate their functions in the newly formed HM Revenue and Customs, more back-office work is being transferred not to the north, Wales or Scotland but to Worthing, to which it has no geographical link. That is the kind of issue over which the Government have total control. They are in charge and should make sure that what happens is in accordance with the longer-term programmes that they are trying to develop on housing.
	I would like to know why such issues, notwithstanding the Lyons review, have still not been addressed. I would be grateful if my noble friend could check it out and write to me, as, I guess, she will not be able to respond directly today. Those of us with an interest in developing the housing programme may want to return to the issue.
	I am trying to be positive and find solutions, rather than simply being critical of the policies before us. However, I want to say a few words that will be in a critical vein about the way in which wider social consequences are arising from the push in certain locations to build as fast as possible. I declare an interest: I live in Brighton, where a planning application has been lodged for the construction of a massive mixed but mainly residential complex in Brighton marina. It will comprise residential blocks of between nine and 15 storeys, with a skyscraper of 42 storeys over the top of it all. I used to live in the marina, but I left there four years ago because I felt that it was becoming too congested. There are now nearly 900 homes there, but the proposed development will add nearly 1,000 extra, more than doubling the population in an already congested space.
	The only saving grace is that a figure approaching 400 of the proposed new houses and flats will be used for affordable homes. However, I believe—I pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market—that the majority of the other apartments will go as second homes. One way or another, we will have to address the issue. Much of the new building that is taking place in many parts of the south-east is not for the most deserving people but for second home owners.
	That is not the end of the story of the marina. There is another marina application in the pipeline. It is a plan to relocate and rebuild the Asda supermarket that is already there and provide another 545 flats on top of that. Beyond that, a planning application for 200 to 300 extra homes in the marina village is also expected. That is simply not sustainable in such a confined space. The council believes that the residents will use bicycles, not cars. My experience is that, regrettable though it may be, most people who have second homes travel to those second homes with their family in a car, not on public transport. If those applications go through, we will be building up great problems for the future.
	I raised the marina example today for two reasons. It illustrates the kind of problem that we are increasingly encountering with the building programme. Brighton has been famed for its pavilion and its beautiful Regency squares and crescents. The most marvellous example is the Kemptown conservation area immediately adjacent to and in the shadow of the proposed new skyscraper. Secondly, the House has a direct interest. It established a Select Committee to examine the original Brighton Marina Bill; I have a copy of it here. Your Lordships were satisfied that numerous conditions controlling development were adequate, particularly those limiting buildings to below the level of the cliffs so that they did not interfere with the character or environment of Brighton. Since then, the buildings in the marina have been strictly limited to four storeys. It is true that there is a clause in the Act that allows for some flexibility for the erection of other minor structures, but what the council is now proposing in conjunction with a building speculator flies in the face of what this House and the Commons wanted at that time. I hope that we will not proceed along those lines. Certainly, I would anticipate that there will be attempts to make sure that the council, at least if it wants to proceed, brings the Act back to Parliament to seek to amend it here and not outside the confines of Westminster Palace.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for the chance of this debate. She was my most excellent team leader when we faced Mr Paxman in the equivalent to "University Challenge". We did not do too well then. Perhaps we can do better today. I particularly hope that we will succeed later today in the very important renovation of the Conservative Party, of which I have great hopes. One of the encrustations that we need to knock off that edifice is the association between the Conservative Party and nimbyism.
	As regards housing, we have become linked with the interests of those who have and who want to keep it that way. We have allowed new Labour, in particular, to camp on what is, to my mind, our natural territory and certainly the bit of it that I occupy, which is for people to aspire to better things and hope that life for them and their children will be better and, in this context, they want better housing. Gordon Brown has done extremely well in camping on that territory.
	The Barker report is a very firm foundation on which he can lay claim to that territory. I support many of the recommendations and conclusions of the Barker report. I am not surprised at the Liberal Democrat Party, but I am surprised when members of our party deny basic economic truths just because the conclusions they lead to are inconvenient. It is absolutely obvious that not building houses is one of the causes of prices going up. It is basic economics which you cannot get away from. There may be other causes, but that has to be one of the underlying fundamental reasons.
	I am also delighted to see the recent report, which has its origins in Rowntree, which showed the origins of this housing demand. It made it absolutely clear that these are our own people who want additional housing—our grandmothers and our children. It is not incomers or people migrating even from other parts of the United Kingdom. It is our own people who are generating this housing need. It is our own communities that we are denying when we stand in their face.
	However, I think that Gordon Brown will be in trouble because of the way in which he and the Government have chosen to move forward with the housing ambitions which, quite rightly, come from their analysis of the market. They have gone for targets and central diktat. It is very clear that the ODPM intends to run a steamroller over nimbies, which is self-defeating in the end. If people aspire to something, it is probably aspiring to becoming nimbies in their own term. Certainly, it is the experience that if you are building phase three of a housing development, the most vocal objections come from the occupants of phase two. Nimbies are not "not us", they are all of us. We are all like that. We have to understand those motivations, but we have, in understanding them, to accommodate aspiration in the way in which, I think in our party, we have not done. I think that the Labour Party is making the opposite mistake of not understanding the needs and aspirations of those people who are already in possession.
	As I said, central diktat will be the real downfall of this Government. They are failing to provide for the old, for instance, and those with particular housing needs. One of the effects of enforcing the building of lots of little boxes on brownfield sites in the centre of cities is that the sites which are suitable for building specialist accommodation for old people are no longer available. As has been said earlier, they have to rattle around in places that are too big and unsuitable because no one is building specialist accommodation for them. As my noble friend Lord Caithness said, the places that we are building in the middle of cities will just become the ghettoes and slums of the future because they are not what anyone will want to live in. We have to accommodate aspiration.
	Several noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, have drawn attention to the problems of the north. Well, fine, but exporting poor people to the north is not the answer. We have to encourage real economic regeneration in the north. With our planning policies, we are stopping that from happening. You cannot build a house which is suitable for a managing director in the north for love nor money. You cannot move the middle classes north. You cannot move those who are going to generate wealth and new businesses north because you are not allowed to build houses, communities and facilities for them. A good house in Yorkshire is more expensive than a good house in some parts of the south. It is utterly ridiculous.
	As several noble Lords have said—in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Lords, Lord Cobbold and Lord Cameron—we are utterly devastating our villages by not accommodating their small and gradual needs within these grand central plans. Naturally, people have limited imagination—I do not mean that pejoratively, but naturally. If you are planning things centrally, you want to do it in large lumps. I recently endured the Hampshire County Council consultation on where to put houses. It cannot think of less than 5,000 houses at a time. The fact that my village needs another two houses every five years does not come into it. It gets excluded because it is too small to think of. So my village is left to die.
	I want to see something much more local. In getting there, we can build on a couple of positive innovations by this Government. One is the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, the idea that you can have an expert body that can arbitrate on the real needs and background of a problem. How many houses do we need? What sort of houses do we need? Where is the market demand? How do you judge the Barker inputs? That can be done by something expert but outside the political process, because essentially it requires an expert judgment.
	Secondly, it is necessary to see local authorities as facilitators, not as governors. Hampshire County Council, which is my county council, is far too big to understand my local problem. But it is needed as an integrator. At my local level, I cannot see what needs to be done about roads, infrastructure and school provision. The council is needed to make them function in a way that I can comprehend. But essentially, decisions should be taken by local communities, by villages and towns generating the specification of what should be done in their areas. To the extent that they are having to respond to a central diktat that will come from NICE or its property equivalent, if they choose not to build in their area, then they pay something extra, for example, £500 a head extra on council tax or something like that. If they do their bit, that is fine. If they do more, then they get some financial reward. People can be incentivised. They can be allowed not to develop, but if they do what is required of them and play their part then they are essentially allowed to do what their local community wants to see happen. That would be a truly Conservative solution to this problem.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market on instigating a debate that has been fascinating so far and which I am sure will continue to be so. I want to address two particular issues: rural housing provision and how the Government are implementing policies that take account of climate change.
	I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for enabling me to shorten the contribution I shall make on rural housing provision because he has made so many points very admirably. I do not think it is necessary to repeat them. However, he was incredibly kind to the Government because he spent several years as a rural advocate as chairman of the Countryside Agency. At that time, it published annual reports on the state of the countryside which drew attention more vociferously every year to the top priority need for more rural housing. Every year the Government made some pleasantry in response to that report and did, as far as I can see or have heard from noble Lords this afternoon, precisely nothing.
	As other noble Lords have said, the house-building need in the countryside is for a very few houses in very many settlements. If one considers that there are some 8,000 parishes or 17,000 settlements throughout England, two or three houses in each one every so often will meet that provision. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was absolutely right when he said that this will work only if the Government let go and follow a decentralised model that allows local control and local needs to drive the process. It is impossible to address developments of two or three houses in small settlements, or six or 10 houses in slightly larger villages, in a centralised model. It is completely inappropriate. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that when the Affordable Rural Housing Commission—on which I am sure we are all pinning a number of hopes—comes to report, Elinor Goodman will have a lot more fortune in seeing her pleas and recommendations acted upon than the Countryside Agency has had in the past.
	Finally on rural housing provision, I could not let this moment pass without commenting again on the point my noble friend Lady Scott made about the self-invested pensions scheme. Is it too late for the Government to think again on the effect that it will have on rural areas where people want to buy a second home? They will undoubtedly use this scheme to facilitate them doing so.
	I turn now to the issue of climate change. The Government have made urgent and informed statements on the importance of climate change and the very pressing need to adapt our lifestyles to minimise the impact we have on the climate. However, I do not see the Government translating such statements into policy changes in regard to housing. As evidence of this, you have to look only at the pages of the newspapers and the estates being built. Do you see houses being built with grey water recycling; with solar capture, be it passive or solar water heating? Do estate agents' advertisements make much of the energy rating of houses; do, indeed, consumers demand that they do; and are they willing to pay more for houses with an extremely good energy rating? The answer to all of these questions is no, no and no.
	Given that we all accept that climate change is the greatest threat to the planet, it is incredible that our building programme continues much as it did throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The Government have had the opportunity to draw up new planning guidance and new building regulations—indeed, they have done so recently—but they have failed to grasp the opportunity that those building regulations offered. Indeed, they have downgraded the opportunity by watering down the regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, who is unable to speak today, joins with me in making the point that the latest building regulations have failed to take account of best energy-saving practice. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to comment, first, on that issue and, secondly, on the fact that, according to the Building Research Establishment's 2004 report, less than 0.5 per cent of new build exceeded those regulations and some 32 per cent did not even comply with existing regulations. If the Government are serious about climate change they need to grasp the issue of building regulations and do something far more robust with it.
	Ofgem is another wasted opportunity. When we passed the Energy Bill, now the Energy Act, in your Lordships' House last year, we gave Ofgem a sustainability duty. I should like to know what it has done in the mean time to put that new power into effect.
	The Energy Savings Trust issued a very interesting publication recently in regard to changing behaviour through fiscal incentives. It recommends that council tax and stamp duty land tax rebates would encourage consumer action. Some of its figures are very interesting and I recommend the publication to the Minister, the title of which is Changing climate, changing behaviour—Delivering household energy saving through fiscal incentives. If there was a 25 per cent uptake of the initiatives suggested it would cost the Treasury some £347 million; over the same period, savings to households would be in the order of £9,000 million a year, which is a pretty good return on investment—and that is before you take into account the 30,000 million tonnes of carbon emissions that could be saved. I realise that figures in a speech never make exciting reading, but I recommend that publication both to the Minister, if she has not seen it, and to other noble Lords.
	Climate change affects water scarcity, flooding and carbon emissions. These are critical issues, none of which has been helped by the government changing their policies on house building and measures for existing houses.

Lord Best: My Lords, I declare quite an important interest, as director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. I think noble Lords have alluded to six of our reports so far. Indeed, noble Lords have covered almost every one of the fine points I was going to make, not least the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. This has been an excellent debate, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, very much for raising the profile of these issues.
	Perhaps I could use my few minutes to give a little emphasis to some of the points that have been partially covered already and expand upon them. First, there is very little point, for those of us concerned with solving social problems in simply building another however many thousand new homes it is—my figure is 210,000—if we do not put in the resources that ensure that a fairly substantial proportion of those homes, about a third, are sufficiently subsidised to reach the people who will not be able to purchase on the open market. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to haciendas in Surrey and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, to Brighton apartments overlooking the sea used as second homes. There is no point in building 210,000 extra homes a year if we do not make darn sure that we secure a proportion of those for people on lower incomes.
	Unfortunately, a Rowntree report yet to be published will tell the Government that the level of homes being built within the category of affordability—social renting and low-cost home ownership homes—will shortly reach the lowest level since the mid-1980s—20 years ago—when account is taken of the fact that the Housing Corporation's programme is lower than it used to be and that we have done away with social housing grant administered through local authorities, a separate stream of important funding that made more affordable housing available. So we are down to rather low levels, the lowest for 20 years, coming through the funnel of Housing Corporation funding that makes homes affordable.
	My second point will not go down well in all corners. It is no good us hoping that if we concentrate exclusively on the affordability of homes and on the subsidised housing that I am the first to champion, we will do away with housing problems in this country and other problems will take care of themselves. Yes, with 101,000 homeless households currently in temporary accommodation, with, as Shelter's recent report shows, 900,000 children living in overcrowded conditions, people who cannot afford to take their place within the market will need assistance. But we also need to cater for the very many people who are able to afford house prices provided those are not wildly out of line with their earnings and their potential to take out mortgages.
	The Rowntree report that came out last week looked at what we call the intermediate housing market. These are the people whose incomes are too high for them to expect any social housing—they cannot get council housing or housing association accommodation—yet too low to afford housing in the bottom 10 per cent of house prices in their area. It is not terribly helpful to know what average incomes and average house prices are in a particular area—what really matters is what people on the lowest incomes, who cannot get into social housing such as council housing or housing association homes, can afford, and what the prices are for them at the bottom of the housing market. That group of people who are stuck in the middle—who cannot get social housing and are not able to buy—has grown enormously.
	If we say "Let us build for those who are poor, those who have modest incomes and not have these huge numbers of other homes, and all will be well", the number of people stuck in the middle will increase as more people will be unable to afford the prices of the homes that remain if overall supply keeps, as it is and has been for some 15 years, so far behind the level of demand. It is a relentless process that every year new households are formed.
	We may not like to hear that the first problem, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, said when she referred to the recent Town and Country Planning Association report—which was funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation—is the longer lives that we live. We now have a complete extra generation to house that we did not have some 50 years ago because we live longer. That is great, but it means a lot more households to house. We know that households now form in much smaller groupings, not in families with grandparents and four children all living in one place, but in single-person households. There are a lot more of those.
	Inward net migration is also a factor, although not of refugees and asylum seekers—who make very little difference to the housing market—but of those who come here to work, especially those who are relatively well-off, such as bankers and people who work in the financial services industry. They have a big impact on the market because they bring with them the resources to price out local people—unlike the asylum seekers who are dispersed to areas of very low demand or are overcrowded in accommodation in London and elsewhere. Inward migration accounts for an extra stream of additional households—about a fifth of all new households—and our growing economy needs those migrants. This relentless pressure continues. It will not go away and we have to address affordability for all sections of society, including the group that falls in the middle, who cannot afford to buy and would not get the social housing that we have been talking about.
	I fear that it is not helpful to suggest that people will go north. Even where we are getting the economy to pick up in the inner urban areas of places such as Newcastle—where there has been a miraculous turnaround in the inner-city location in which people can live and work—the population of Newcastle is still falling according to the figures in the previous two censuses. It will take many decades before a very serious turnaround in the economy leads to the population ceasing to flow to what some believe to be the capital of the world. London has magnetism not just as an international city, but, in many respects, as the international city, on which the wealth of the nation is so dependent.
	Those trends will not turn around in a hurry and people will not move north in their droves. We must recognise that. Even when we say, "Let's give the south-east a bit of a breather and turn our backs on more development there", we must recognise that the people who are pressurised out of the south-east—it is happening all the time—push up the house prices in the neighbouring regions. In the south-west, there are greater problems of affordability when one takes incomes in relation to house prices than we do even in the south-east. The people who can move in the south-east and London can pay the high prices there. They clamp down on the south-east and the south-west, the eastern region or the East Midlands suffers.
	My eight minutes expires at this point, but the problems will not go away. This has been an excellent debate and I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for securing it.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I want to deal with the Government's failure to plan properly for the movement that is associated with housing development. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, I am a county councillor—in Oxfordshire in my case—and we share the problems of the south east. It is typical of the south. We decided, as members of the county council, to locate significant housing in Didcot, although the location is not really important. There is space, there are good roads and a good railway service and a lot of employment is available. We went through a long and painful consultation about the precise location for the development. All this is for the 2011 version of the structure plan, which was published five years ago.
	What has been the Government's contribution? Some years after the plan was adopted, the Highways Agency, which I take to be part of government, objected to the plans for Didcot because it said that the A34 was overloaded. It is almost impossible in Oxfordshire to develop anywhere without having an impact on the A34, but the Government have consistently rejected the requests of the county council to undertake a study of the A34 corridor. Because they will not do that study, the whole plan for whether you can upgrade the railway that passes through Oxford is on hold, because again we have a log-jam. The Highways Agency starts things off, and then you do not get a study and then you cannot consider what the railway alternatives are because you do not know whether there are any road plans for the A34 corridor. So the Government say, "Expand housing", and we respond. Then the Government or their agencies make life impossible by objecting to the chosen sites several years after they have been chosen. The situation gets worse, because we have just finished the 2016 structure plan, which is likely not to produce enough houses to satisfy government targets. So there will be more houses, and the likely sites are either in Bicester or around Didcot, both of which are adjacent to the A34.
	In drawing up the new Great Western franchise, the Strategic Rail Authority, another agency of the government, wrote about four or six months ago saying that it proposed to cut in half the intercity train service to Didcot, which was expanded two years ago when the franchise was let. Now the proposal is to cut it in half. The trains that travel along the corridor from Didcot, Swindon and south Wales—I am not being parochial now—are nearly full. In fact, they are full and standing room only and very over-crammed, but the government agency proposes to cut the train service, although we must wait until the franchise emerges to know whether that will happen.
	Bicester is to the north east of Oxford between Milton Keynes—an area of huge housing expansion—and Oxford. The roads are fearfully congested; I instance junction 9 on the M40 as a case in point. Yet we have pleaded to have attention given to the east-west railway, which runs from East Anglia, through Bedford and Milton Keynes, into Oxford through Bicester and down to Didcot and south Wales. The railway actually exists for a good deal of the way, and the cost of upgrading it is only £64 million, which is small money at this stage. But we have a complete mismatch between government agencies saying that we cannot have that railway line, although the cost-benefit ratio is only 4:1. How are we going to have the houses that we are going to build in Bicester—and the Government are going to build a lot more at Milton Keynes—when the road and the railways are congested? I shall not go on to talk about the schools and the sewage and all sorts of other things. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, referred to the other pressures that are being felt by county councils. So we have a complete mismatch between the Government's housing proposals and those allowing people and goods the mobility that they deserve.
	I shall not go on at great length, as I feel that I have made the points that are essential and which the county council feels are essential. These issues much be addressed, because if you want to build houses, you must provide the wherewithal for people to move.
	The Regional Transport Board is a rather peculiar body, as it comes under the South East England Regional Assembly, which is not an elected body although it has elected members on it; but it has a Regional Transport Board. It has not allocated any funding for the next five years to central Oxfordshire or the western corridor that lies behind it. The regional funding allocation is only £140 million a year, and that is for the south east. That will not buy us more than 20 miles of widened motorway or new roads.
	I have concentrated on the transport situation in Oxford and its environs, but it is difficult to see how we can progress with these new transport regional infrastructure schemes if we persist with our adversarial planning system which takes 20 years to decide whether one can build any major infrastructure system. It means that lawyers go through tremendous processes—Terminal 5 at Heathrow is probably the worst, but there are many others. I have calculated that it takes 20 years between the time one starts drawing lines on a plan and one can actually open the motorway or railway. We have a complete mismatch there. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether something will be done about the planning processes themselves. They are sclerotic and prevent progress.
	The county is very prosperous—there is much industry and it develops rapidly. People want jobs in our factories, laboratories, offices, shops, hospitals and services. It is a prosperous county, but it is also one of the engines of growth of the economy. That is where we will gain the money for Britain to pay for the many things that are needed.

Lord Sawyer: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Baroness for initiating this debate. It is a serious, complex and worrying issue for us all. I therefore suppose that it is good to talk. Perhaps I too can declare an interest at the beginning of the debate. The only one I can think of is that I was once the treasurer of the Darlington council tenants' action committee. We used to battle against the council, both Labour and Conservative. I do not know why they made me the treasurer—I had no money at the time. I think it was because they wanted someone young to carry the banner.
	The only people we disliked more than the council in those days were private landlords, whom we used to depict as greedy, grabbing and thieving rogues, and that was when we were being polite to them. But time has moved on. Modern times meant that the council which was once our saviour fell out of favour and the workers with more money wanted to be like the bosses and own their own homes—and why not?
	Selling council houses was probably Maggie Thatcher's most successful policy, making tenants owners at the right price. The trouble was that she did not replace the stock that she sold with new stock for those coming into housing need. In many ways I feel quite depressed at present. I do not blame the Government for that in any way—I think that the pressures on every front are so intense that we are going backwards. Council provision is not very good where it does exist, and it does not exist in many places. Housing associations make some provision for those who cannot afford to buy, but that provision is declining: 7 million dwellings in 1981 and 5 million dwellings in 2003.
	On a personal note, the big increase which quite annoys me is the development of small private landlords—"buy to let" or "how my generation exploits its own children" are the terms I use—and rent levels that my children cannot afford and make it impossible for them to save for a deposit to buy. Now we have self-invested pensions, to which the noble Baroness referred, where once again the wealthy will receive tax relief at the expense of the not so wealthy and give the market another spin towards the private landlords and the rich.
	The Government are trying in any way they can to reverse some of those trends but it is difficult. However, by their own admission—an interesting statistic—only one-third of today's 10 year-olds will be able buy their own home if nothing is done about the right-to-buy, the supply and the affordability situation.
	I know that the Government are doing their best. I was very interested in David Miliband's contribution this week about trying to get communities to take responsibility for buying and making provision for housing. I am also very interested in the initiatives which I have read about that John Prescott has been trying to take, to build houses that people can buy for £60,000 or £80,000. It would be immensely exciting for young people in my life and in my family if that were possible.
	I must keep on at the Government to make home ownership—this might not be everyone's priority, but it is certainly my top priority—a big campaign in the future. The matter I want to touch on in the next few minutes concerns whether to ask housing associations—we do not normally associate them with houses to buy—to become involved in such a campaign. I was the chairman of Notting Hill Housing Trust for five years. Our main focus was on the kind of things I have already talked about. Initially, we tried to overcome the legacy of notorious landlords such as Peter Rachman. Eventually, we got into our stride and provided 15,000 homes for rent in some of the most desirable parts of London. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to Notting Hill. The association built rented homes there where the opportunity for less well-off people to buy is almost non-existent. However, much more needs to be done in that respect. Although Notting Hill Housing Trust and other housing associations should continue to build houses for homeless people to rent—that must be their core business—they ought to consider that when people come off benefits, get into work and become more socially and economically active, their aspirations, abilities and desires to buy start to grow. As their life chances improve, they want their housing situation to improve.
	Just before I left Notting Hill Housing Trust a survey was carried out which revealed that two-thirds of our tenants would prefer to buy their own homes. You cannot go on ignoring that. You must face up to the fact that those tenants want to be like us; they want to buy. They do not want to rent. The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to the report of Professor Wilcox published this week, which reveals another group of people who are stuck in housing need as a result of the slow pace of building. These are people who do not qualify for social housing—they have jobs and a reasonable income—but in many parts of the country they cannot afford to buy. What will happen to them? That was a question posed by the noble Lord. They will become increasingly disaffected. They will slide down the social scale and open up divisions in our society. They will see themselves as not being part of the "haves" but as being part of the "have-nots". We cannot afford to let that happen.
	Over the years I have become increasingly convinced that if we are serious about reducing some of the big social issues such as child poverty, and increasing social mobility, we must help more working class people into appropriate forms of home ownership. In rented homes the poor get poorer and have precious few assets in their old age. Buying shares in their home—the one place they possibly could buy shares—or buying it outright will encourage them to save, build asset ownership and strengthen the commitment of families to their communities and homes. All the research shows that having an asset can make all the difference to poorer families, older people and people from disadvantaged backgrounds.
	Notting Hill Housing Trust was one of the first organisations to pioneer shared ownership. That was an early attempt to make home ownership more affordable. That has been successful. We provided about 7,500 such dwellings. Other associations have taken that on. It is a growing area. However, it needs to grow more. Perhaps we could encourage tenants to buy shares in homes owned by housing associations to enable them to have a stake. They could start to build up assets, increasing wealth, choice and self-esteem by having such a stake in their homes. They could then perhaps free up social housing for those people who need it more.
	I do not want to occupy all the time that I have been allocated. I knew what I wanted to say and I hope that I have said it fairly clearly. Home ownership is very popular in this country. Perhaps it should not be, but it is. That is how it is. In some European countries wealthy people are very happy to rent, but that is not the case here. Seventy per cent of people in this country own their own homes, but, interestingly, 80 per cent of households comprising a couple and two children own their own homes whereas 30 per cent of single parents own their own homes. That statistic tells a story. I do not want to go over the top but I sometimes get tired of armies of professional home owners lecturing tenants, or speaking on their behalf, about what they should want. We should listen to what tenants want. More often than not they will say that they want to be home owners too. We should take every measure that we can to try to help them become home owners.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I apologise to the House for the fact that, due to a last-minute change in a medical appointment, I had to miss a lot of the earlier part of the debate. No discourtesy was intended.
	The economic and social implications of the housing programme will be a disaster if everyone concerned does not take into account the enormous demographic change in our society. I do not mean only that we should build houses for older people, but refer to the huge changes in terms of different social mores, marriage patterns, family structures and, above all, the drop in the fertility rate and the change in balance between old and young people in the population.
	We need a lifetime approach to housing. It is essential to us all. Often we think about community healthcare and social care, but we do not always build it around housing, which is the core for us at certain stages in our lives. We need to make it the core around which lives are built and the environment, particularly the built environment, is centred. Integrated approaches are excellent. They have to take into account all those factors. The new regional spatial strategies make that clear. They have not been taken up everywhere but are being taken up in the south east. I hope that the approach will become the norm and that authorities will have to justify not making it so, because it is so important for the future.
	We need an inclusive housing approach by having lifetime housing that can adapt to changes as we go through life. Some countries have taken that further forward than us. What we need when we have young children changes when they are teenagers. Now many teenagers stay around for a long time, go away and come back again because they cannot afford to get on the housing ladder, have partners—married or unmarried—and children, and so on. Later on, we have older caring responsibilities and need flexible housing. It is possible to build it—it is done in some areas—so that the housing itself can be adapted to those changing needs. With an aging population, it is important to have obviously accessible housing and to adapt housing, so that disabilities can be encompassed easily in new housing structures. As the population ages, an awful lot more acquired disabilities need to be accommodated in our housing plans.
	I want to talk for a minute on changing family structures. We have to take into account and accept the fact that, in our aging population, many people wait until the children grow up and, if they are in an unsatisfactory relationship, break up. Often they find themselves a new partner, but they do not always want to share 24 hours of the day with them. An emerging pattern is partnerships but not full-time ones, so that you have a new but quite normal procedure of being together but apart. In many European countries, that is becoming frequent as an arrangement because of the changes in working patterns, and because women in particular now want autonomy. We all want a certain autonomy in our domestic arrangements.
	We know that the housing shortage is, in part, due to the fact that there are now so many single-person households. That kind of trend—with people being in a relationship at one point but not at another—adds to the need for single-person dwellings, which of course intensify the housing shortage. Therefore, family structures need to be taken into account.
	Because of the increasing numbers of older people, we must also think about the services that are required for people to remain independent and autonomous in later life. Many such services can be provided by peripatetic organisations. Sometimes that is not enough, and the loneliness and isolation of later life can be very well combated by extra-care housing. We know about that: the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has created a wonderful example of it just outside York, where people are autonomous and have their independence but services are provided as and when they are needed. There are other exemplary situations around the country where the changing needs of people are catered for from total independence to a requirement for some care.
	When looking realistically at the alternatives for people as they get older, we must take into account that transport is very important. There is no point in living in a nice environment if you are imprisoned in it and cannot get to the doctor or see your family and friends. So we need a decent transport system around any community—one which, if we are looking to the future, takes into account the fact that commuting patterns will change enormously due to changes in work patterns and in the population. That is part of what I have been saying all along. We need new forms of transport which take into account the age and physical abilities of the people who use them. Not everyone works from nine to five; sometimes they work at home or in centres near their home, and that must affect our transport policies. It is also important that the needs of the older population are taken into account when we consider leisure—parks and other facilities—and there are marvellous examples of that.
	The International Longevity Centre—UK—I declare an interest as its chief executive—is carrying out work with planners and other professional partners, including the Anchor Trust, in providing a tool for planners which will help them to segment their future population accurately. That can be done better in London than around London and in the rest of the country, and it will help people to plan realistically for our population needs as we go forward in this century.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I imagine that most of my colleagues in the House would say that everything that can be said about housing has already been said, but I say, "Not by everyone", and I intend to make my contribution. I am delighted to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is in her place because we are two original founding members of the housing repertory company.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, should be very pleased about her debate because timing is always of the essence. Securing the debate at this time through her party provides us with an opportunity to get one or two things off our chests. This afternoon, we have heard speakers with expertise and experience, and it is not possible to replicate anything that has been said. From my own experience, I know that I am listening to people whose hearts are in the right place: they speak from different points of view and have different experiences.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and I are possibly the only two speakers in this debate who share a common experience—that is, we were Members in the other place and therefore we had constituencies and constituents. I speak from the heart of my experience as former chairman of a housing committee and the leader of the London Borough of Enfield and of speaking on the environment in both Houses. The Government have to try to tackle many problems, all of which have been adequately aired. However, I very much hope that they will spare more time and money on the needs of the homeless—although I do not say that they have not done well in that respect.
	Bob Mellish, as Minister for Housing, and Evelyn Donnington, as chairman of the GLC housing committee, came to Enfield in 1965 and spoke to our council. They persuaded us to have a target of building 1,000 units a year in one London borough. Unfortunately, we were rejected by the electorate two years before it was achieved, but the plans and the programme were laid down.
	In the 1960s and 70s, there was still slum clearance, relative poverty and low wages. Housing tenure came from three categories: owner occupation, council housing and private rented housing. Looking over the years in preparation for the debate, I realise what a fantastic change there has been in those options. The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to that. The problems of the poor and of trying to solve the housing problem will always be with us. We will never satisfy everyone, from wherever they may come. That does not mean to say that we do not need to keep on trying.
	When I was leader of the council, I looked around for ways in which to house people and we hit on the idea of buying private houses which were for sale. We did so and we put council tenants in them. Of course, it caused a furore—"It's creeping socialism"; "That's not your job"; and all the rest of it. However, our council was desperate to try to house the people on whose behalf we tried to work and there were solutions. I commend the organisations involved. For example, one private organisation in north London, Limelight Properties, buys up properties, maintains them well and provides accommodation for the Government and their agencies to use in one way or another. There has been a rapid change in that field.
	Homelessness is a scourge in our society and I applaud the Government for what they have tried to do. Let me quickly indicate their strategy, which was outlined in Sustainable Communities: Homes for All. It stated that they want to prevent homelessness by widening the access to settled homes and halving the number of people living in insecure temporary accommodation by 2010. The Government take on many remits and they want to do a lot of things. They say that that strategy will be carried out by preventing homelessness; providing support for vulnerable people; tackling the wider causes and symptoms of homelessness; helping more people move away from rough sleeping; and providing more settled homes. I believe that that is a laudable objective.
	I recall twice leaving my surgery during my 10 years as a Member of the other place when I went outside and sat in my car and cried. I could not drive away and I cried in my car at the sheer depression and misery experienced by some of the people who came to me as a result of their housing situation. They were either living in overcrowded accommodation; on a council waiting list; had been evicted; and so forth. There are many reasons why people are homeless and it made me cry twice during my 10 years. I am not ashamed of it, but the sheer inability of one individual—perhaps even one government—to solve the problem is frustrating. The problem will be solved only with patience, with resources and with determination.
	I say to the Government—my Government, which I support but which I am capable of criticising in many ways—that if they want to concentrate on one aspect of helping people to lead better lives, it should be in housing. Whether we have been an MP or not, we all know that the quality of your home, your house, makes a great difference to the way in which you bring up your children, in which you enjoy life and make a contribution at work. So I say to the Government: three cheers for all that they are doing in housing, especially for the homeless. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
	Finally, I do not forget at all the point made to me by the Woodland Trust: that we need to protect our ancient woodland. In its brief, it tells me that 45 sites of ancient woodlands are threatened by housing development. It is one of those dilemmas. The Government want to protect the woodland, but they also want to give permission for housing to be built. I am not talking about nimbys or vested interests; I am talking about the problems that the Government must face. As far as I am concerned, not only are they doing all that they can, but I wish them well in future.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market for the opportunity to discuss these issues. The reason that this debate is important has been illustrated by the wide-ranging issues that have been covered by so many noble Lords. Of course, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, spoke so knowledgeably about the housing need for the disabled and, in particular, reminded us about the dramatic increase in accessible homes in the light of age-related visibility and infirmity. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, was concerned about the Government's general approach to expanding into the green belt and spoke about the impact that that will have in Essex, with its costs on infrastructure. The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, spoke of the concept of the green belt being eroded and sought changes to planning in that regard.
	The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, with years of ministerial experience, spoke of improvements to the quality of local authority housing stock, especially energy efficiency. He noted the problem of affordable housing and spoke with vast knowledge of the problems of rent restructuring and its impact on mixed communities. We hope that the Minister will take up his suggestion positively.
	The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, covered the shocking impact of the Deputy Prime Minister's plans for housing development and the environment and the step change by which increased centralisation is removing local decision-making—a sentiment with which we have much sympathy.
	My noble friend Lady Maddock spoke of the quality of the housing stock and of the high number of houses that do not meet the decent housing standard. She spoke about how the tax system does not take into account the value of repair and maintenance and we hope that the Government will also be sympathetic on that issue. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke of the unaffordability of rural housing for local young people and the need to retain affordable stock under the right-to-buy policy. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, spoke of the lack of ambition of the public service transfer programme, whereby pressure on housing in London and the south east could be much reduced if public sector workers could be reallocated to other regions where housing supply and infrastructure can accommodate their needs.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, spoke with enthusiasm of the Barker report. It will not surprise him that we do not share his analysis; I hope to touch on why later. My noble friend Lady Miller spoke of the need for rural housing, as well as the impact of climate change and not prioritising energy efficiency. As my noble friend knows, it costs just £5,000 to bring a house up to Eco-home excellence status and we should be doing more about that. The noble Lord, Lord Best, noted that at least one third of extra homes built needed to be publicly subsidised to be affordable and called for more measures to assist those in need of intermediate housing.
	My noble friend Lord Bradshaw, who knows more about transport and the problems of rail and railway infrastructure than most of us, brought home to us the real problems of the planning system and its mismatch with transport policy. The noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, saw owner-occupied housing as a top priority for the Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, spoke of the inclusive housing approach that we need to cover housing needs across the ages of one's life. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, wanted to increase measures to deal with homelessness and covered the Government's various strategies to deal with it. He spoke passionately about how housing affects all of life's chances.
	As the debate has shown, housing and the way that public policy in that area is developed will have an impact on the well-being in old age of the current generation. It will, and does, have an impact on the robustness of our economy. But above all, it will impact in both the long and short term on the very social fabric of our society and in particular the life chances of the next and future generations. Housing and housing need is the thread that runs through discussions to do with health, wealth, quality of life, education and jobs, to mention just a few. The Government's response to the Barker Review, which we understand to be forthcoming, will be critical to the discussion.
	We hope that, in assessing their priorities for response, the Government will not interpret solutions to housing need in the way that the review suggests; that price stability is the objective and the way to achieve it is through supply-side measures such as changes to planning through which building on green belt and the countryside will be promoted. Covering up more of the countryside with new homes neither renders communities sustainable in terms of local schools, hospitals, shops and jobs; nor does it remove the burden on infrastructure where transport links are overstretched in any event and private car journeys have to increase. It makes a mockery of environmental sustainability where building is on flood plains and where water and natural resources are overstretched.
	Ultimately, relying on building new communities on greenfield land is not even about choice. If there were genuine choice, most people would wish to live in pleasant surroundings near their place of work, close to their families and friends, and with good amenities to hand. Low-density suburban sprawl is not usually the mechanism to achieve that.
	The ODPM's consultation paper, Planning for Housing Provision, which my noble friend Lady Scott has already mentioned, gives the illusion that the need for housing can be satisfied if only the housing market mechanism can be made to work. The objective of government policy, according to this paper, is to ensure that land is allocated in plans to provide for an appropriate level of housing supply that better meets the need for housing. Ergo, if only developers could build with fewer constraints, the supply of housing would soon catch up with demand, thus delivering price stability—that Barker aim—and we would all be well-housed. The evidence does not support the analysis. We know that new-build contributes just 10 per cent per year to the supply of owner-occupier housing. We also know that this emphasis on the market and on market solutions fails to address the central problem, which is a demand for affordable housing, both to buy and to rent, as many noble Lords have said. That need exists across the board in both urban and rural areas. We also know that it has been exacerbated by a growing demand for key workers by demographic changes, whereby we are living longer, independently in our own homes, which are not becoming available for our children at the rates they might have in the past. Housing need is also affected by changes to our lifestyles whereby we live in smaller units.
	We know that the housing market, and therefore the supply of housing, is influenced by a range of economic considerations: tax incentives, interest rates, return on capital and a host of other considerations. Many noble Lords have spoken about SIPPs—self invested personal pensions. We have seen recent moves through changes to SIPPs whereby those who wish to invest in second homes will now receive a tax break to do so. We understand that this change is partly designed to assist the flagging housing market. On the one hand, we have ODPM calling for price stability in the housing market, and on the other hand we have the Treasury—with its infamous black hole looming—which is seeking to boost the housing market by providing breaks for second homes.
	As my noble friend Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay has warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if, for example, a high-earning, top-rate taxpayer bought a £215,000 flat from his SIPP for a child to live in while at university, he would have £86,000 of the purchase price paid for by taxpayers. He could then sell his flat in a few years' time at full market price and pay no capital gains tax whatsoever because the property is held within a tax-free fund.
	Although the relaxation in pension investment rules helps the better-off, what of acute housing need? The support for second homes will, as a minimal effect, reduce housing stock, as well as affordable housing, in rural and urban areas. It will push those with a genuine housing need even further from the bottom of the property ladder, whereas what is needed for them is investment in social housing, both rented and owner-occupied, so that they can live and work in mixed communities.
	We would encourage the Government, in preparing a response to the Barker review, to concentrate on bringing empty homes into use. In the areas of greatest need—London, the south east and the eastern region—are one third of all the empty homes in the country. In fact, there is a surplus of empty homes to households in every region of the land—some 700,000. We also wish to see a more level playing field for brownfield developments through changes to the VAT regime and to the consultation process of the planning gain supplement that is foreshadowed, but only if it were carefully drawn up not to discourage development and to allow an element to be retained for local authority usage.
	A holistic approach to regional development is needed. Instead of accepting the assumption that all economic growth is focused on the south and the south east, we should ensure that all regions of the UK get their share of infrastructure and regeneration. That will be the only lasting solution to environmental and social sustainability for all communities. If it is achieved, it will be a lasting legacy for this Government.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has done us a great favour by introducing this debate today. On behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, I thank her. I declare an interest as an elected member of a local authority.
	As time goes by it becomes increasingly apparent how complex the Government's policy on sustainable communities has become and, as my noble friend Lord Lucas, in particular, pointed out, how centralised it is. Nobody believes that there is no requirement for additional housing—both the intermediate housing described by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and affordable housing. The need for affordable housing is due to the complete collapse of social housing provision in recent years. Fewer than 13,000 units of social housing were developed across the country in 2004. So the expectation that more than 200,000 new homes for both the private and social sectors can be achieved in each of the next 10 years, some of which will be in the affordable category, is beginning to look something of a chimera.
	A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Maddock, and the noble Lords, Lord Cobbold and Lord Cameron, have drawn attention to the terrible problems associated with rural housing at the moment. We have had several debates on the Deputy Prime Minister's plans based on the Barker reports, but I do not believe that the Government have satisfied the concerns expressed continually about the impact of those objectives on both the countryside and the environment. Experience might suggest that no such plan has ever been implemented on such a scale before, and probably has little chance of being implemented now. But if it were implemented, what is the likely impact?
	The proposals for the south east raise immediate questions: the effect of building virtually one large urban sprawl along the M11 corridor, from London to Cambridge; the costs associated with such development and the required infrastructure; the impact of the expansion of Ashford, in Kent, and Milton Keynes, already sizeable urban areas; and the Thames Gateway, admittedly the most likely of the projects to be achievable, where literally hundreds of new homes are being created.
	These large areas of expansion present particular problems, in terms of creating communities from hundreds of families who neither know each other nor have any previous association with the area. This will be particularly true where significant amounts of key-worker housing is constructed, since the expectation of that will be not only that it will serve the needs of public service staff in the immediate areas, but that it will have to help out the problems of the south east and London as well.
	In each, there will be an overriding need for houses in which people actually want to live. The evidence that properties are now being built 40 to an acre, rather than the more traditional 25, means either that there has to be a large element of high-rise building, or, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, pointed out, that the room sizes will be unduly small and poky. What about gardens, or communal open spaces? These will have to be sacrificed or considerably reduced.
	We know, however, that that is not what people want. They yearn to be able to swing a cat somewhere outside. They yearn for a space that they can call their own; a garden that is not overlooked by surrounding high-rise buildings. They want a property that is not identical to those all around—individuality rather than conformity and good imaginative design of houses, business accommodation and infrastructure facilities.
	Many other matters have been raised today. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has drawn attention to the fact that the Thames Gateway is being built on a flood plain. How is that matter being addressed? Is it just going to be left, so that when the area does flood, the residents can shrug their shoulders and paddle for dry land? How are they going to buy properties there if mortgage lenders of repute are not willing to fund them because of this risk?
	What about the infrastructure problems, both here and elsewhere, a subject raised especially by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield? Transport problems have been graphically described by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Transport is critical, not only to enable people to work within London and the wider south east but to have easy access to their homes.
	The south east's water supply is already under threat. September's rainfall was only 75 per cent of the long-term average. The reservoirs are at 51 per cent of capacity, and river flow is well below average. That is now. Where are the plans for increased water provision? More reservoirs will only add to the need for land take, but is there even any proposal for providing them? What about desalination plants—where are the plans for those? In reply to a question from my noble friend Baroness Trumpington earlier this year, the Minister seemed to imply that that was all for future discussion; that responsibility was being laid at the door of the water companies; that metering and other, unexplained initiatives would resolve the difficulties. Indeed, the Minister's predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was even more vague when I asked him a similar question earlier on. His reply implied that all would be fine, even if no one yet knew how.
	Is water to be imported along with oil and gas, so that we have to rely on other countries for our requirements? Are there plans to create an aquifer system that would enable water to be brought from the more abundantly supplied areas of the north and north west? Will the Minister start to tell us how these matters will be resolved?
	Many speakers have drawn attention to the absurdity of increasing the population of the south east even further and seeing the populations of the areas north of the Wash systematically being depleted. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, suggested that moving some businesses to the north and north west would help to solve that, although the noble Lord, Lord Best, was not at all happy about it. Will the Minister tell us what plans the Government have to increase the desirability of the north and north west even further, particularly in employment terms, so that additional employment and housing are created there?
	I know that successful efforts have been made in some areas, but there are still large areas that relied on traditional industry and manufacturing that has now failed, and they need to be bolstered. The population there needs employment and improved housing. The non-urban areas of the north, north-west and north-east are among the most beautiful in our country, and considerable efforts are being made to improve at least some of the cities. However, much more needs to be done, especially where there is great concern over the demolition of property capable of rehabilitation.
	The Government have a target of 60 per cent new build on brownfield land, but it is just not happening. Accepting the Barker recommendations would take the brakes off building on the green belt and double the house-building target. It would just increase the huge skirt of concrete round our hollowed-out cities and destroy for ever the green and pleasant land that characterises this country.
	The Minister's predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—I apologise for referring to him again—was always at pains to point out that only 6 per cent of land in England was termed as "built-up areas". That is not quite correct. The 1990 figures for standard statistical regions, which will have increased only in the past 15 years, show that, of the whole country, 10.7 per cent was deemed to be built-up. Current targets for the south east are already over 15 per cent. Apart from Yorkshire and Humberside, the south east is the most heavily built-up part of the country. It is here that the Government propose to add even greater pressure. It is therefore imperative not only that new development is concentrated on either small or large areas of brownfield land but that what is built is of high quality design. Design is one of the most important aspects. We all know of swaths of estates of identical houses or grotesque blocks that quickly become problem estates. One of the briefs for any new housing must be to ensure that that does not happen.
	It is essential that the Government not only listen to but respond to the innumerable concerns that have been raised today. The environment is under great threat, and the policies that we have discussed today have a major influence on it. There is no question that the need for housing is understood, but that housing must be constructed within the myriad of other requirements that have to be met. If it is not, it will be worthless to the people who need it and in the context of the rationale that has been put forward for it.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I join all noble Lords who have spoken in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, on securing the debate. It has been an astonishingly good debate. Speakers from all parts of the House have covered most of the aspects of housing that affect most people, whether they are tenants, aspiring owner-occupiers or people preparing to approach the housing market. I congratulate the noble Baroness on the way in which she opened the debate and the spread of ideas that she offered and which have been taken up. I do not think that I have heard a debate in which a Minister has been offered so much advice and so many good ideas or has been challenged in principle and in detail to the same extent. That may be because I am relatively new to housing.
	I am pleased about the range of common ground; the emphasis that everyone has put on finding innovative solutions; and the overwhelming consensus between us that, as my noble friend Lady Wilkins said, we cannot run away from the problem. We disagree about how we do it, what priorities we have and what protections we provide and about how we organise the way in which we analyse, provide, plan and fund. That seems to be an optimistic way forward, although I should say that I heard some extremely gloomy prognostications, which I will try to address if I can.
	As I say, we all agree that the challenges that face us are unavoidable, urgent and extremely diverse. It is true that housing has—for the first time for many years, I think—become a salient part of social and economic policy. We could debate why it has taken so long for that to happen, but I think that we agree that it has. We agree on the demographic pressures, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for giving us such a wonderfully clear and imaginative account of the way in which we need to think about an ageing population not simply in terms of housing but in terms of all the social constructs within which we will all have to live. Today, figures were released which show that the population will grow by 7.2 million by 2031. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, it is the pressure and challenge of an ageing population which is making the urgent need for different sorts of housing. I hope to talk about lifetime needs later. That is only one socio-economic change.
	The other is smaller households. The number of new households is outstripping population growth. Between 1996 and 2003, there was a 5 per cent growth in the number of households, compared with a population increase of just 2 per cent. We can also agree that the housing market is extremely unbalanced. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, concluded her remarks by talking about the north west and regions of the country where we have a different economic challenge.
	How can we link up regions which have been relatively neglected? We are trying to address both jobs and homes at the same time. There are places where houses have been changing hands for less than £10,000, while, in the south east with our over-stressed market, we have seen average prices rise from £91,000 in 1999 to £170,000 in 2004. Many noble Lords have raised issues about rural areas and the complexity of the challenge and the tension between wanting to keep our villages and market towns alive and thriving, while, at the same time, there are all the difficulties of providing for those within the constraints of our beautiful countryside. Those pressures have to be put against the stark fact that in the past 30 years the demand for new housing has increased by 30 per cent. House building has dropped by 50 per cent. As the noble Baroness said, over the past five years, the average price for first-time buyers has risen by 86 per cent and incomes have risen by only 30 per cent.
	That leads me to my final fact in this introduction. Housing is not just a social need, which most noble Lords have addressed in different ways. It is an economic imperative. Unless we build the houses that people need in the places where they are needed, so that the skills, services, jobs and incomes are there for the next generation, we put at risk our economic prosperity now and for the future. We have spent a great deal of time today thinking about the future because we are thinking about future house buyers and what their choices and chances are. When the powerhouse that is London and the south east, for whatever reason—historic or geographic—begins to falter, the whole economy will suffer, because it has not been growing in recent years; it has been constrained.
	In the four southern regions—the east, London, the south east and the south west—we may already be close to a tipping point. Quite simply, over the past 30 years we have built 350,000 homes, but the number of households has increased by 500,000. The Halifax survey reported that over the past three years, the percentage of towns in the UK classed as unaffordable has risen from 55 per cent to 93 per cent for nurses; from 34 per cent to 77 per cent for teachers; from 34 per cent to 71 per cent for police officers; and from 56 per cent to 90 per cent for firefighters. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, talked about care workers in Essex. Against the background that Essex is facing, we should remember the fact that care workers need homes and that they are not well paid.
	One in three households is now outside the housing market. As house prices increase, first-time buyers are increasingly concentrated in higher income groups; that is, young people with high incomes or parents with high incomes or young people who can turn to their parents for help. We have to think about the others. Do we turn to those who cannot turn to their families and say, "Well, tough, you should have chosen your parents more wisely". They would be shut out from what my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton described as the basic securities of life. Do we turn to those people and say, "Well, I am very sorry. It is very hard, but we cannot do anything about it". As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, if we merely build social housing, we will not sort out the problem. We will simply create a greater problem.
	We have a major challenge. Our notion of affordability and our evidence suggests that unless we take necessary steps, the percentage of 30 year-old couples who are able to afford their own home is likely to fall from 50 per cent today to below 30 per cent in 20 years. That is the challenge we have to meet.
	It is against that background that we commissioned the Barker report to explore the links between economic growth and housing supply. It was on the basis of very robust evidence that she came to stark conclusions about the need for a step-change in the provision of houses. Her work has been reinforced by other work that ODPM and DfT have commissioned since then. We agreed with her analysis, and we are now in an intensive, thoughtful and evidence-based process of exploring the right balance of what we need, what we can afford and where growth can most sensibly, coherently and organically be encouraged and sustained with the greatest benefit. We will be setting out our response to the Barker report before Christmas. But let me assure the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that we shall take a broad view. It has to be put in the context of many other things that we are thinking about regarding housing supply to balance the economic case with the social and environmental cases.
	But we had to make choices in the interim. We have been following the blueprint for sustainable communities for a better balance of housing supply. We identified four growth areas: Milton Keynes/south midlands; Ashford; London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough; and London and the Thames Gateway. Noble Lords have raised the spectre of centralisation in many different ways. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, talked about "not organic" communities. Let me stress that the reason these areas were identified was that they are building around existing communities, some of which—Corby, for example—were in urgent need of regeneration. This was not a frivolous or casual choice. We know that there are difficulties. There are genuine tensions and I look forward to exploring them with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, at another time.
	We also know that within those regions we have to provide for affordability. I shall say something about the commitment to sustaining not just cities but countryside communities. So many noble Lords raised this: my noble friend Lord Whitty, the noble Baronesses, Lady Maddock and Lady Miller, and the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Cobbold. Some of the challenges are the same, but some are very different. It is because of that mix of tensions that we set up the Affordable Rural Housing Commission. I hope that many of the things that noble Lords have said this afternoon will be referred to that commission. Regarding rural housing enablers, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that the proposed new rural and social community programme is designed to develop the capacity of the rural voluntary, community and parish council sectors. If proposals are agreed, programme funding will be available to support rural housing enablers in some regions where there is an agreement that it is a priority. Perhaps I should write to the noble Lord at more length about that in due course.
	Our aim is to improve affordability within those regions. We have positive policies: for example, dedicated land is kept for rural housing under the rural exception, councils can reduce the discount on second homes and, from April 2007, key workers will be able to take advantage of the key skills package in rural areas. We are doing quite a lot of things, but we are looking to the Affordable Rural Housing Commission to help us to frame some other options that we may not have explored.
	We are also working in areas of housing market stress. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is right that we need to join up jobs and housing. One of the privileges of this job is that I am seeing what is happening on the ground in areas such as south Yorkshire, where I saw long-term unemployed young people being trained in skills for the construction industry and being placed in jobs building the houses and infrastructure that is needed in the region. Many things are happening to the credit of those schemes.
	There is a bit of mythology about how we are doing this in the Pathfinder projects. It is very important that we achieve the sort of revival and regeneration that we want to within the regional plan to reduce regional inequalities. The Pathfinder projects are not dedicated to demolition. That is a minor option. So far, we have demolished 10,000 houses for good reasons, but we have refurbished 20,000. As the market is changing, we are looking at the pattern of provision and the choices that the Pathfinder authorities have to make sure that those are the right choices for those communities.
	I turn now to speak briefly about the social benefits. Many noble Lords more eloquent than I have described what it is like to be able to afford a home. There is a feeling of security and safety, not only for individuals but for communities—a great benefit and feeling of content which makes communities sustainable. Affordability is at the heart of this. By "affordability" we mean different things, but the Government are committed to increasing affordability. We have invested £5 billion over the past three years to 2005–06, double the level of 1997. We have built 230,000 affordable homes and we have had some conspicuous successes.
	My noble friend Lord Graham was quite right to prioritise homelessness. At the very sharp end, when we came into government in 1997 there were thousands of people on the streets; there were 457 at the last count. We have virtually abolished families living in bed and breakfast. There are still many people living in temporary accommodation but we are working on that problem. We want them in settled accommodation; which is better for them and better for the communities. This year we have set the Housing Corporation the target of delivering 33,000 new social housing units and a very ambitious target of 75,000 social rented housing units—that is 10,000 a year—by 2008.
	These figures will not be easy to achieve but we are serious about this. We have put £1 billion into key-worker housing and we aim to help around 80,000 key workers and first-time buyers to own their own home by 2010 through the Homebuy schemes. We are looking for innovation in funding, management and organisation. I can tell my noble friend Lord Sawyer that the RSL sector is very important now as a way of buying as well as renting.
	Renting is extremely important. It is not wrong to rent because it is right to buy. My noble friend Lord Whitty will know that rent restructuring is designed to achieve a fairness which has been denied us so far. But I take the point he has made and I will meet with him to talk about it.
	As to decent homes, we have placed a priority on improving homes in which people are currently living. A million fewer people now live in homes without bathrooms, decent kitchens, insulation and all the things that they have a right to expect. The role of the local authority is essential: it is to be the strategic authority at the heart of the community and the custodian of housing, not only social housing but across the range. Local authorities are now involved in building new social housing through expanded PFIs, funding building by housing associations and working with the Housing Corporation.
	I turn now to the final aspect of sustainability—that is, the environmental challenge. We cannot deny that building for future generations has environmental implications, but we can anticipate and manage it. By planning for community needs in a more open way at a regional, spatial level, we can avoid the unplanned urban sprawl; we can avoid the soulless housing estates which marred so much house building in the past. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, referred to the requirement to build around the needs of the community.
	Let me deal with some of the issues that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, between them demonstrated the difficulty of the green belt. I should say to the noble Earl that we have no intention of diluting the planning controls which surround the openness of the green belt. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, and we will consider it.
	As to greenfield sites, I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that the latest figures show that we are currently exceeding our targets for brownfield usage. We are now building on 70 per cent of brownfield sites. Indeed, in the Thames Gateway, the figure rises to 80 per cent.
	We are also increasing the total area of green belt land in England—indeed, it has increased by 19,000 hectares—and we have set a target for each English region to maintain or increase the current area. But we want to go further because we want to increase the quality of the green belt. In places such as the Thames Gateway we are considering how to create a network of green spaces which are generally available and of good quality. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that design—whether of public space, the public realm, or of houses—is absolutely essential. I have seen some wonderful examples of how the public realm is being transformed, not least in the north-west. There is increasing confidence that we can build at higher densities without losing—indeed, with enhancing—design. I am confident, having talked to the many planners and architects involved in these partnerships, that they see this as a major challenge but also as a major possibility. I think we can have confidence in the way in which people are coming forward, including private developers, to deal with the volume house market.
	Noble Lords have referred to water, power and transport. How could I possibly answer the questions about the A34 asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw? I shall have to defer to his long experience and simply say that the Department for Transport is putting £3.5 billion into infrastructure. We will commit a great deal more as we go through this process. The noble Lord is right in that it has to be a proper partnership. Things have to be done in the right order and planned properly. There is nothing to argue about. Through the demands we are putting on the environment, we are creating infrastructure.
	On planning, although I cannot defend the document's prose, it makes it clear that we have methods of making land available in novel ways. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, should take some comfort from the fact that we have delivered a 40 per cent upgrade in the energy efficiency of all new buildings in three years and brought that forward.
	We have recently signed a concordat with the Environment Agency to identify as early as possible where the pressures are, to work more closely with the water companies, to plan the new reservoirs and ensure that we have the new technologies for the new build. In terms of energy, we are looking at the existing as well as the new housing stock.
	My noble friend Lady Wilkins spoke about the needs of disabled people in the context of what the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said. We must build for a lifetime: we must build to the highest standards and the highest technical quality. I shall write to her about Part M and the lifetime standards. We are making progress, we intend to make further progress, and I understand her sense of urgency.
	We have an opportunity to meet social needs and economic challenges. For the first time, I believe, there is a consensus that we can build differently; we can build more responsibly through a new planning system which is more responsive, proactive and transparent. And because it has a statement of community involvement, building at local level, is not centralised but more local and regional than before.
	We may not be doing everything right. I have taken great heart from the ideas put forward by noble Lords today. I look forward to continuing this debate at a different time and in a different context. I again congratulate all noble Lords who spoke, apologise to those whom I have not answered—I shall write to them—and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, once again.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, my sense that the House was overdue a debate on housing has been borne out, not just by the number of speakers but by the quality of the contributions we have heard. I thank all noble Lords who have participated and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Common Agricultural Policy: Financing (EUC Report)

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on The Future Financing of the Common Agricultural Policy (2nd Report, HL Paper 7).

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, it is delightful to see so many speakers this evening on the arcane but very important subject of the common agricultural policy. I remind noble Lords of my interest, as chairman of the South Downs Joint Committee which looks after the South Downs stretching from Winchester to Lewes. I thank all my colleagues on sub-committee D who took part in this very interesting inquiry.
	Thanks also to our Clerk, Suzanne Todd, Charlotte Granville-West, our committee specialist, and Brian Gardner, our special adviser, all of whom gave us great help and who prepared the tables and boxes that I hope ease the way into understanding how the common agricultural policy works.
	Our present inquiry is on the Commission's proposals for reform of the EU sugar regime. That has been a long-term problem. Defra has estimated that it costs the EU taxpayers some €7 billion a year. The net cost to the Euro budget is about €1 billion and the EU protected price is around three times the world open price. We are therefore hoping to produce some ideas before the Council of Agriculture Ministers meets in mid-November and before the Commission's proposal for reform goes to the World Trade Organisation at the important Hong Kong meeting in mid-December.
	Only 10 days ago, some of us had a meeting with Commissioner Fischer Boel in Brussels to discuss the subject. She told us that she was going for a 39 per cent cut in the EU price while giving up to 60 per cent compensation to sugar beet growers. She thought that that was a bold step and so did we. The EU price, at the end of the day, I would still be twice the world price. That same afternoon we met with a number of ambassadors from the ACP countries. They did not like what the Commission had proposed at all. Some of the poorest thought that it would drive them out of growing sugar cane altogether. Others wanted to keep the protected quotas. Yesterday, we had Tate and Lyle in front of us at our inquiry. We were told that, if the commissioner's proposals went through as is currently suggested, Tate and Lyle would probably have to close its refinery in east London. It employs a thousand people in a rather deprived area. That made one realise just how extraordinarily difficult it is for a commissioner to come up with a solution to an accepted problem that everyone agrees to.
	To digress for a moment, I have been reading a very good biography of Martin Luther, the 16th century architect of the Reformation. Noble Lords will remember that he pinned his famous 95 Theses on Castle Church in Wittenburg, to protest against the growth of indulgences—money given to the Church to save you from hell. Apparently a popular slogan at the time was "a penny in the box; a soul out of purgatory". Luther thought that he was doing something that not only he believed in but that would have Papal approval. He was quickly excommunicated three times—by his own order, by the Emperor Charles V, and by Pope Leo X, because funds for building the new St Peter's in Rome were just too important.
	Sympathetically, therefore, last night I compared Luther with an agricultural commissioner for the sheer difficulty of coming up with the right solution and getting everyone to agree to a problem that everyone sees. The difference is that Luther and the Reformation could break up the Rome-based Church without destroying it. However, I doubt that one could break up the CAP, which is such a major supplier of support to the rural community—including Britain—throughout Europe without breaking up the European Union.
	The view that our report took, therefore, was that there was a need for further reform. We eventually reached—not without difficulty—the conclusion that the single farm payment, just introduced this year, would have to go by the year 2013. That day, Peter Riddell of the Times summed up our report of 50 pages in 500 words. His piece had a nice title,
	"Lords have set out map to keep European Union on the road",
	which was a very pleasant compliment. But we realise that if the SFP went, there would be great difficulty for farmers, and farmers on small farms in particular; and I have no doubt that other noble Lords will speak about that subject later in this debate.
	I remind noble Lords that we thought that when the SFP had gone, it would have to be replaced by two new funds, both coming under Pillar 2 of the Commission's budget and both concerned with restructuring the rural areas, and that we thought that that was of paramount importance. Of the two funds, one would focus on environmental objectives—the non-production services of farmers, such as maintaining bridges and ponds, rebuilding stone walls, and taking care of animal welfare, wildlife and wild flowers. Those are all things that farmers are involved in but for which they do not get direct payment by the market. That fund could be backed up by national money. The other fund would concentrate on rural development, especially available to meet the question of rural poverty in the 10 new entrants to the Union. We felt that their needs were not adequately covered in the 2003 Luxembourg agreement.
	Witnesses from Romania, Slovenia and Poland gave us evidence, which I found the most worrying part of the evidence that we took. I shall give your Lordships two quotations, the first from Mr But, the state secretary of Slovenia. He said that,
	"an average farm in Slovenia is at least three times smaller than the average for the EU. On average, a Slovenian farm would be 7.5 hectares. We never had any so-called collectivisation as in the other new Member States. There was a prohibition on increasing the level of hectares. The normal procedure in the old EU of 15 was frozen for 40 years in Slovenia".
	The Secretary of State of Romania, which will join the EU in 2007, in two years' time, said:
	"Romania has 22.5 million people as inhabitants. In terms of agriculture, we have a very poor standard of technology and very small farms. I would say in 4.7 million farms half of them have less than a hectare, which means most of them are producing just for their family, not goods for the markets. 32 per cent of active people are working in agriculture".
	That is an emphasis on what is expected financially from the EU, and not in a sense unreasonably, by the 10 countries that have entered recently, which will be followed by Romania and Bulgaria—not to mention Turkey and Croatia later on.
	That leads me on to the budget. As we all know, the budget from 2007–13—for the next EU period—has not yet been resolved. The UK and five contributor nations want to reduce the EU budget to 1 per cent of gross national income per annum as opposed to the 1.14 per cent that the Commission wants. That would be a reduction of some €130 billion to €210 billion, depending on which definition you take of the budget. At the same time, Defra and the Treasury, in their answer to our report, which was kindly circulated by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, say:
	"The Government has been clear that any change must take account of the legitimate needs of farming communities and happen over time".
	But how do you do both? How do you both cut the budget and take account of the legitimate needs of farming? That is the agony about CAP reform at the present time—you simply cannot have your cake and eat it.
	No doubt some part of the cut to the budget of 1 per cent of GNI from 2007 onwards would fall on the CAP, and from that the Pillar 2—the rural development pillar—might well be the one most to suffer, because that is the one for which no specific figure has yet been named. We calculated, and we say in our report, that in those circumstances there could be a 55 per cent reduction in the Pillar 2 budget over the period. Yet listening to the very pleasant meeting chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, last night about the Natural England Bill which will start in this House in a few days' time, I was prompted to ask Jim Knight, the Minister for Rural Affairs, where the money would come from for his ambitious plans and he said, "Well, we are looking towards Pillar 2 of the EU to produce the money".
	I know that other colleagues are going to talk, as I said, about the sustainability of British agriculture in the tighter circumstances that I have mentioned. I should like to say just a word about the World Trade Organisation, the Doha development round and the meeting that starts in Hong Kong in eight weeks' time. There are very great hopes for that meeting, as we know. Free trade is the goal eventually, especially for the 24 poorest countries—free trade in everything but arms. As far as the CAP is concerned, we could say that the battle has already opened between the EU and the USA. Both are promising—and this generates some optimism—substantial reductions in trade-distorting subsidies: 60 per cent in ceilings on upper limits, says the USA; 70 per cent on domestic subsidies, says the EU. But those figures are immediately rejected by officials. The EU says that the US's proposals are "excessively ambitious", whereas the World Bank economists say that 92 per cent of the benefit to the poor world's farmers from rich nations' liberalisation will come from tariff cuts, not lower subsidies.
	Politicians are already objecting. Mr Chambliss, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, insists on counter-cyclical payments to compensate US farmers for low prices, and Christine Lagarde, the French Trade Minister, has surprisingly rebuked Peter Mandelson for already going,
	"beyond the conditions and principles of his mandate".
	In conclusion, I have to ask two questions. Can we achieve the fair free trade which we all talk about and want in a way that will help the least developed countries to increase their agricultural exports and thus earn more foreign currency so that they do not run up more debts? Can we reform the CAP in such a manner that will keep good EU farmers in business, deal with the genuine needs of the new entrants, improve our environment and at the same time cut the budget? The answer to neither question is clear, but it certainly seems to me that in the move forward both the EU and the USA will have to throw a lot of inherited inhibitions out of the window. Will it happen? I hold my breath in anticipation.
	Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on The Future Financing of the Common Agricultural Policy (2nd Report, HL Paper 7).—(Lord Renton of Mount Harry.)

Lord Whitty: My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken second in a CAP debate; I usually have the luxury or the difficulty of winding up. In this case there is no reply. It is particularly difficult because I agree with a lot of this report. It is a sober assessment of the situation and the political realities of the situation. It is clear that Pillar 1 will be under substantial pressure, and rightly so in terms of the other priorities of the European Union. Less fortunately, Pillar 2—which most of us largely agree with, support and would like to see more resources for—will be under particular pressure because it is not protected by the Berlin or the Brussels ceiling.
	I think, however, that the combination of those pressures, the WTO pressures and the pressures on the budget to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred, could result in a shorter timescale for other reforms to the CAP than the report perhaps implies. In particular it has to be recognised that there has already been—I keep making this point—a very major reform in terms of decoupling. Decoupling, and its cutting-off of the level of production from the level of support that the Community gives to farming means that some of these issues can be squared. It means that what is good for farming and farmers is not necessarily the level of subsidy but the degree to which they are forced by circumstances to face the market and to succeed in being competitive in the market while at the same time meeting various environmental standards which the EU and society now demand of them.
	The noble Lord has already referred to other outstanding business in the sugar regime. I do not want to go into that in vast detail because it is extremely complicated but it shows that although simple liberalisation may not benefit the poorest in the world nevertheless the present regime is utterly indefensible. We therefore need to have some progress on the sugar regime. I also think that we ought to have another look at the tobacco regime. The deal that has been done on decoupling tobacco subsidies does not really have full effect until 2010 and yet it is probably the least defensible part of the whole of the CAP policy. We could return to that if we are short of money and there is pressure on the money.
	I also think that between now and 2013, certainly at the review period in 2008, we could reopen how much money is being put into Pillar 2 through compulsory modulation. The committee rightly says that the UK is going further than the compulsory modulation. I personally am in favour of that whereas it casts some doubt on it. However, if we raise the level of compulsory modulation, we could get it into rural development rather than simply into across-the-board subsidies.
	I refer to other pressures such as the WTO. I have not been known always to be a great supporter of everything that Mr Peter Mandelson says. However, on the other hand, he has now got himself free of any obligation to the Agriculture Council and the French attempt to try to pin him down to not reaching a deal in Hong Kong or beyond which reopens agriculture issues. Some flexibility is needed there. The political reality—which I believe the committee underlined—is that the settlement that was made in 2003 will not be completely unravelled. There is not a political majority for that. Nevertheless, it could be improved at the edges in the ways that I have suggested.
	The Government and the British media must recognise that you cannot get the complete defence of the British rebate and radical reform of the common agricultural policy at the same time. There may be a trade off at the edges but basically you have to choose which is your main objective. That is what the negotiations will do. You may be able radically to reform the budget, although I doubt that you would do that in a very short time scale, which then has implications for the CAP, but you cannot use the tail to wag the dog—you cannot change the CAP to deliver a radical reformation of the total budget.
	I turn to the other longer term issue on which the committee does not fully focus. However, it looks at the period beyond 2013 to see what changes may be made. It is likely that the single farm payment in its present form will not survive, certainly at the level at which it was set in 2003. The pressure of the renegotiations on the budget and the other pressures may lead to some degree of repatriation to national level of parts of the common agricultural policy. In my view that would be to the good. We need to retain a single market and single rules in terms of quality and safety throughout Europe, but some of the support that society gives to farming and to the rural community as a whole would be better delivered at the national level. I say that as a long-standing pro-European. We ought to be moving towards that strategic objective. It would benefit British farming but it would benefit more the British environment and our competitiveness and it would remove most of the objections to society giving the form of subsidy that it does at present.
	While I am totally in favour of decoupling there is still some major distributive effect of the way we pay the subsidy at the moment which is indefensible. I was instrumental in ensuring that we put into the public arena under the freedom of information measure how much each farmer and enterprise received. One of the strange things is that, if you analyse the two places where I live by constituency, the Cities of London and Westminster receives a larger amount than North Dorset. That is ludicrous and reflects the large farmers benefiting disproportionately from what is primarily now, and ought to be in future, not a food production policy or a policy in support of any particular industry, but a social and environmental policy. That is what the CAP was originally formulated to be in the very early days of the common market.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak in the debate as a member of Sub-Committee D. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, who pushed through the report. Its arrival is timely. I would also like to be associated with his remarks about the staff of the committee and our advisers. It is an excellent report—thorough, well informed, well researched, informative and a good analysis of the situation. It makes practical proposals for the future and is realistic.
	There are no quick fixes for solving the challenge of reforming the financing of the CAP budget. I feel a little like Woody Allen, who said that he had taken a speed- reading course, read War and Peace in 10 minutes and could say that it was about Russia. One cannot possibly cover the whole of this subject in six minutes, and I shall not attempt to. I shall try to concentrate on one or two issues.
	The glib statements made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor along the lines of "1 per cent of GNI or die" are, frankly, not sustainable. There are only five other net contributor countries to the EU; they hold a similar but less strident view. The remaining 19 EU countries stand by the Brussels ceiling set in 2003 of 1.14 per cent of GNI, which they say is not negotiable. We have an interesting situation in front of us. Perhaps the worst feature of it is that no proper financial EU provisions were made for the admission of Romania and Bulgaria into the EU in 2007. The CAP will pick up most of the tab—at least half of it, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. He has gone through the state of Romanian and Bulgarian agriculture, and it is a huge financial challenge that will come on the CAP budget. Who do you hear talking about that? That is a social question about the cohesion of the EU as well. Glib statements will not solve the problem.
	The report states that: the pressures on Pillar 1 will increase; the Brussels ceiling should not be reopened because of further instability; enlargement will be the main pressure facing the 2007–13 budget; financial discipline mechanisms will prevent the overrun of Pillar 1 spending; and single farm payments will reduce from 2007 to 2013. I have already covered enlargement. There is justification in the report for Pillar 1 spending. The fact that it is now decoupled helps us in our negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, and puts many of the support measures into the green box.
	One of the main issues is to try to secure environmental objectives, and there is a strong case for a continuing Pillar 1 in the short term. The single farm payment is being used as a vehicle for radical reform of the CAP. Is it merely transitional, or will it continue? That is a big question. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, covered Pillar 2 and the rural development review, which is extremely important so far as achieving vital objectives in rural development.
	Rural development clearly must not damage the environment. A rural development budget heading is recommended, and has to be effective and give value for money. Can it survive without Pillar 1? The report agrees with moving funds to new member states, and recommends that countries should seek to supplement rural initiatives through their own national budgets. Indeed, the success that we saw with regard to, for example, LEADER schemes with small rural projects impressed us greatly. They need to be maintained through a separate rural development heading, but if we stick to a 1 per cent ceiling, we will not achieve any of that in Pillar 2, and that is the nub of the situation confronting us.
	There will be a further review in 2008, and the Commission should identify how rural development targets will be set and reviewed. The major conclusion of the report is that market support and direct subsidies will decline and that export subsidies will be phased out. But the restructuring of rural areas is of paramount importance. Indeed, the new rural development policy, which the report covers, looks at rural poverty, supporting the least advantaged areas, tackling poor infrastructure and the protection of the rural environment.
	To sum up, I would like to see an examination of the situation confronting the agricultural industry when single farm payments are phased out in 2013. I certainly believe that, with global pressure on world commodity prices, and with the downward pressure of supermarket monopolies in the UK, prices for agricultural products will not sustain our family farms in the UK. In that scenario, I do not see how Pillar 1 can be phased out because it is the safety net which will keep the agricultural industry and the population in the countryside going. That, combined with Pillar 2 concerning rural development, should be the way ahead. There will many interesting challenges before us in the EU, the WTO and the UK.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, this debate is very welcome because it raises some sharp-end issues that people would otherwise not think about. The CAP is very expensive, and everyone has been saying for a long time that it is in need of reform. Particularly nowadays, it is sensible to move to Pillar 2 and to environmentally linked payments, but what about the people at the sharp end whose livelihoods will be affected? That concerns me because the effect may not be the one that is expected. It depends what you want and what you are going to get out of it.
	Part of the trouble stems from the ceiling placed on the amount of money available. The EU is enlarging, and there is also the Pillar 1 financial discipline mechanism. When I read the details of it, I realised that, from what Defra put out a year ago, it was going to try to see farmers through the period of change. That change was going to be quite heavily modulated—in other words, it would be taxed by the Government in order to do other things with the proceeds.
	Interestingly, having realised that that would be a problem, the other EU countries are not carrying out their additional voluntary modulation, as it is called. They are paying far less than we are in this country. I seem to remember that the figure is something like 3 per cent compulsory, and we have added an extra 2 per cent in the first year to make it 5 per cent. For the second year, I think that the figure is 4 per cent compulsory, and we have added an extra 6 per cent to make it 10 per cent. There is talk of going higher after that because Defra does not think that there will be enough money in the pot. On top of that, there will be a financial discipline mechanism, which may reduce the overall pot even further, and that is not taken into account. So there will be a great deal less money available to see us all through the transitional period.
	I should explain that I am not a farmer, although I am married to one. I have ended up having to do all the work in the evenings—usually until two or three in the morning—sorting out the paperwork. The paperwork is referred to in the report, which states that it should not be too burdensome. That is nonsense. I shall come to that in a moment if I have enough time, but the amount of paperwork is terrifying.
	I want to ask what, finally, we want. Who do we want to carry out the farming? Do we want people who have been farming the countryside for a while and know about it, or do we want new industrialists or people who have made money in the City or whatever who will buy the bankrupt farms for their amenity value, paying high prices? They will then be nicely controlled by Natural England, dancing to Defra's tune. People who have carried out environmental studies will tell them all about the puddle police and how they must not have puddles in their fields. They will be told how they must let their hedges grow long and leggy, not cutting them too often, because it is nice for the birds which nest high up in them. However, they do not realise that there could be problems for ground-nesting birds. I shall not go into the detail because it will be interesting to see what happens.
	However, I do not believe people realise that you cannot go back 50 years to the point when you had low inputs and also low outputs. When you were getting less than one tonne per acre, you could afford not to put on lots of fertilisers and sprays. The trouble is that one tonne to the acre does not pay the wages, let alone the compliance costs, let alone the overheads of doing all the things you have to do in a modern business. You therefore have to increase the yields and once you do that you have to use fertilisers and sprays. Then you get into problems and you have to aim at four tonnes per acre—about eight to 10 tonnes to the hectare. That means that you farm in a completely different way, but you have to farm efficiently.
	The other problem which emerges is that farmers were heading for that, were geared up to do so and were doing quite well. However, the price you get for your wheat has halved over the past few years. On a 200-hectare farm, say, your income will be down £100,000 to £150,000. What goes out of the window, therefore? It is your advisers: the agents who advised you and the management. You take out all the tiers and you use contractors where you can. Suddenly, everything comes down on the poor old farmer—back to the paperwork issue. I have got so fed up with it, and that is why I want to speak in the debate.
	People need to remember what is said at paragraph 51 of the report: that,
	"witnesses stressed the need to compensate farmers for the non-production services which they provide to the community".
	By the way, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that a large estate—we do not have a large estate—must of course receive more money because it has more miles of hedgerow and ditches to maintain, margins to keep up and so forth, according to the new rules. Just because it is bigger does not mean to say that it does not have to spend the money on doing the work. People do not realise what is involved. I notice that there is a mistake in the report because according to page 46, farmers are required to establish a protection zone measuring two metres. Actually, if you are growing wheat and you look at your pesticides regulations, you will realise that if you are going to use a category A pesticide—and you must if you get flea beetle, say, and you want to save your crop—you need to have a five metre zone as a wet water course and you cannot reduce that even if you do a LERAP—local environmental risk assessment for pesticides. I am afraid that the amount of regulation just goes on and on.
	I shall wind up because we have only six minutes. I will not bother to list the two pages of things that I have worked out we have to know about. There is everything from farming; forestry; health and safety; visitors, both invited and uninvited; disabled access; property, commercial and other; building regulations; planning consents; the administration accounts; VAT; payroll; getting stuff through Government Gateway on the Internet; the employment law, including grievance procedure, maternity, sick and holiday leave; and equal opportunities. I presume that in your farm offices you will know about the VDU seating requirements; Internet policy; work/life balance; and the insurance for the contractors who come on to your land. Finally, we get down to all the Government's single farm payments, single payment systems and entry level and they cannot even get the maps back to us. All this money is supposed to be in the system and we are supposed to get this entry level stuff, but they cannot get the maps to us. We have been trying to apply for entry level for six months, since August. The whole thing is in chaos. You cannot get the money because the money is not there.
	To conclude, to give your Lordships an idea, farming is a business and we must explain to the bank why we are getting no income this year. Under EU law, farmers should have been informed of their provisional entitlements by 31 December 2005. They will not now be informed until shortly before receiving payments next year. This is a contravention of the EU law and court proceedings can result. I expect that some farmers can be involved.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, I last made a maiden speech in 1966 as Member of Parliament for Monmouth. I then had an unwelcome sabbatical, was returned for my home city of Swansea and was on the Front Bench for most of the Opposition years. For eight years, I had the honour to chair the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place—the city and the world. Another chapter now opens. I thank the staff of this House and my many friends from all parts of the House, some of whom have expressed their good wishes on this occasion, who have already made me feel at home.
	I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I have long held the reports of this House, especially those of the EU Committee, in the highest regard because of the great reservoir of expertise that is available here. This report is no exception. The Government's response shows that there is a substantial consensus in the UK. Unhappily, that consensus does not extend to a number of key partners in the Union. Other noble Lords have mentioned the current contretemps with Commissioner Mandelson, where the French government and others are seeking to control his negotiating brief in Geneva and prior to the Hong Kong World Trade Organisation summit in December. That shows the real problems that exist.
	However there have clearly been significant reforms within the CAP. Its share of the EU budget has fallen; there is a new distribution within that budget; there is a new emphasis on the environment; and so on. I congratulate the Government on assisting in the Fischler reforms of 2002–03 but, as the committee points out, the facts of the World Trade Organisation, the first enlargement from 10 to 25 and the subsequent enlargement show the need for radical reform. It can be argued that we, as a country, sold the pass in 2002 by accepting that perspective until 2013. I concede that there was a let-out clause in paragraph 12 of the Brussels communiqué: without prejudice to future decisions. Notwithstanding that, we are clearly not in a strong negotiating position.
	It is not only that for many the CAP is seen as the Ark of the Covenant, the high-water mark of integration, but national interests are mightily mobilised. France, for example, has a successful, strong agricultural sector producing 23 per cent of EU agricultural output and would be the main loser from cuts in tariffs and subsidies. The current political context may not be encouraging. We have the presidential election in France in 2007. In Germany, we have a highly weakened government in the coalition, with the agricultural lobby from the CSU strengthened. Even in the accession states, Poland, for example, shows that Euro-scepticism is evaporating as farmers and the countryside generally benefit from EU subsidies. Notwithstanding that, all of us have an interest in the success of trade liberalisation. Perhaps the report would have been improved if it had showed a greater attention to that political dimension.
	Briefly, I ask the Minister three questions. Realistically, are the pressures for change in the CAP strong enough to overcome the entrenched agricultural interests within a reasonable time frame? For example, is there not a case, now that we have had the US proposals and the counterproposals from Commissioner Mandelson on behalf of the EU, for seeking to align the US and EU position, as I believe that the Government seek to do?
	Secondly, what are the Government's ambitions within that sector during the remainder of the presidency? Even if there are no prospects for radical CAP reform—save, perhaps, in sugar—will there at least be agreement on starting a review of EU expenditure? In that process, the UK rebate must be on the table. Bluntly, does the Minister agree that we will not make poverty history unless we make a substantial part of agricultural protectionism against the third world history as well? We have done well in interest reduction and aid but the great gap is progress on the agricultural side.
	Finally, the committee is right to point out that ultimately the CAP needs drastic reform; right to state that the 2002 reforms failed adequately to anticipate enlargements; and right to call for the phasing-out of direct payment to farmers from 2013 with a corresponding encouragement of a broader range of countryside activities. Those are all sensible aspirations but some commentators, such as Peter Riddell of the Times, have called the recommendations a "road map", perhaps unintentionally inviting comparison with the Middle East road map—sensible in concept, agreed in principle, but alas largely stalled by massive political road blocks.

Lord Biffen: My Lords, it is my happy task to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, on his maiden speech. He comes to this House with a reputation as a committed Christian, but above all he will be recognised as having been chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in the House of Commons, where his robust conduct in that post earned him an enviable reputation. I am sure that we all look forward to his continuing contributions in this place.
	I congratulate my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry and Sub-Committee D on a report that I found immensely instructive in the information that it imparted, as well as in the modest and measured recommendations that it made. Before I consider it, I mention a modest agricultural interest, which is recorded in the Register. Much more, I have a deep emotional interest that derives from both sides of my family having been farm workers or tenant farmers on the Somerset levels and on the Mendips. I bear the imprint of that, even though I have strayed from my native county these many years.
	Given the short time available, which is an indication of the interest that this subject has created, I have three what I will call "sound bites". First, there is the single farm payment. I am pleased that mention is made in the report that it should be a transitional feature. I cannot believe that it would be a sound basis for agriculture to have single farm payments perpetuating well into the future. I have to offset the plea for the transitional character mentioned by the report against what is written on page 24:
	"We were told by Dr Fischler that the single farm payment will be a reality for European farmers for at least the next 15 years".
	It is rather an Augustinian view of life; to make one perfect but not yet a while. I hope that this House and the British position generally will try to emphasise the transitional nature of the single farm payment.
	Secondly, I should like to make a reference to Pillar 2, which will encompass rural development and also the environmental considerations, which have already been mentioned. The potential for great spending here is considerable, although my noble friend has mentioned that at the moment there will be pressures to try to contain it. It pleases me that paragraph 125 of the report states:
	"Richer Member States should fund a higher proportion of their own rural development programmes".
	That echoes the remarks made by that great Europhile the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, in his maiden speech:
	"The beauty of the French countryside is a wonderful thing, but it should be paid for by the French taxpayer".—[Official Report, 6/6/05; col. 679.]
	I look forward to a situation where Pillar 2 is increasingly seen as a national responsibility to be catered for by national judgments and financed by national treasuries.
	On my third sound bite, I wish to pick up points made by my noble friend who introduced the debate. There is a certain unreality, above all the arithmetic and assumptions that run through the report, reflecting the views of the European Commission and the debate generally. I do not see how all those things can be reconciled. Obviously there are the problems of the social character of the agriculture sector of eastern Europe, which accounts for around 20 per cent of states' national workforce, compared with 4 per cent of national workforces in western Europe. That is a social challenge. Above all, we should not overlook the fact that there is a potential output challenge in eastern Europe. As an aside, the report mentions that in 2003–04 cereal production in the new states increased by 40 per cent. Although climatic conditions govern that, we should realise that the imbalance between agriculture production and agricultural consumption will be exacerbated by the development of eastern European membership.
	There will be an increasing demand for continued and renewed reform. Sub-Committee D makes that point when it says:
	"The disparity between the agricultural needs of the EU-15 and those of new Member States is only likely to grow wider. That reason alone justifies the need for further substantial CAP reform".
	In the context of possible Ukrainian membership, all that is then written in spades.
	All those points illumine the difficulties of the European Union and the much wider issue of the extent to which its political activities, and the financing and monitoring of those activities, must increasingly be seen in the context of the nation states and their traditional disciplines. If we continue to drift in an ever-larger European context, as my noble friend said, the fortunes of the common agricultural policy could begin to engulf those of Europe itself.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, on his maiden speech. I am sure that he will continue to make many such valuable contributions to the work of your Lordships' House.
	Since its inception, the CAP has had enormous influence on our countryside—some good but some bad. On the bad side, the environment springs to most people's mind, but I also believe that the long-term viability of our agriculture is not greatly assisted now by the drug of subsidy, which is Pillar 1. I say that as a farmer, and declare an interest as such. The problem remains how to get from a highly subsidised regime to one of greater economic reality without threatening the lives of those businesses that have to go through cold turkey. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, decoupling is a very good start.
	At the risk of teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, I remind noble Lords that the CAP was originally designed as a social programme to stop large numbers of continental farmers from abandoning the land and turning up in towns, where there was neither employment nor housing for them. As such it was very successful. But if one translated that aim into today's slightly more positive political language, it might be said that its purpose still is, or should be, to maintain economically and socially healthy rural communities while ensuring that our countryside, its towns, villages, landscapes and so on are sustained to a high quality for us and our children.
	So if the original purposes of the CAP, which are still valid today albeit in a slightly amended form, were looked at afresh, they would be approached very differently from how they were approached in the 1950s and 1960s. Agriculture is not so important to rural economic life. Even in the predominantly rural regions of the EU 25, agriculture's share of the gross value-added (GVA) is only 5.8 per cent. In the UK, even in the wholly rural districts, agriculture represents less than 4 per cent of employment and GVA. In the EU 25, as in the UK, over 90 per cent of GVA comes from services and industry. In the UK there are more manufacturing businesses per head of population in our countryside than there are in the towns.
	If we intend to attack rural deprivation and provide the profits to maintain our rural fabric, including the landscape, we should be looking at pump-priming, though not subsidising, businesses other than agriculture—everything from manufacturing to high-tech businesses—that can now thrive in the 21st-century countryside. If you think that landscape can depend only on farmers, I would say yes, but the survival of nearly all farming families today depends on there being a non-agricultural wage or income coming into that household. Other rural jobs are therefore needed to save those families and maintain our landscapes.
	In the context of our debate today, it is obvious to me, as to the authors of the report, that it would be of far more long-term benefit to rural Europe to ensure we have a good strong Pillar 2 budget, rather than Pillar 1. This is especially important for some of the central and eastern European countries where agriculture is practised at or near subsistence levels.
	All the politics and the vested and entrenched interests in the 25 member states, however, indicate that it is Pillar 1 that will be sacrosanct, and that Pillar 2 will be chipped away at over the next few years. This will continue to be the case until the financing arrangements for Pillar 1 are changed to be more in line with those of Pillar 2. Pillar 1 is currently financed entirely from the EU budget. Pillar 2, on the other hand, is co-financed by member states. This is because the Pillar 2 purposes—namely, rural development and the agri-environment—were or are regionally defined and differentiated, and it was thought there should be more local decisions made as to how much should be spent, and on what. That means that the politics of cutting Pillar 2 is now much easier than that of cutting Pillar 2. Changes to Pillar 1 have to be agreed by all 25 member states, and any budgetary pressure tends to be at one remove from the actual decision-makers, the Council of Ministers of Agriculture.
	Why should Pillar 1 remain centrally financed, though? It is no longer largely commodity-orientated, which required it to be universally applied in order to avoid trade distortions. In fact the Commission is now claiming to the World Trade Organisation that the single farm payment is definitely not trade-distorting. So if it is not distorting international trade, how can it distort internal trade? Also, if the long-term rationale behind the single farm payment is for environmental management—and I have heard it described as "environmental payments-in-waiting"—surely, as with Pillar 2, a more localised decision-making process would be appropriate.
	The co-financing of Pillar 1 need not be at 50 per cent, as is currently the case with Pillar 2. It could only be at 20 or 25 per cent to start with. If that happened, however, we might before long get a more rational and sensible approach to the long-term financing of our rural areas.

Lord Giddens: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Anderson on his polished and elegant maiden speech. It did not sound like a maiden speech to me—or at least not like mine, which was nervous and hesitant, and completely different from the one we have just heard. He is going to be a marvellous addition to your Lordships' House.
	I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and his committee on their report. In common with the report last week on the services directive, I thought it was of high standard, comprehensive and well-argued. That having been said, as noble Lords have remarked, it is tactful, cautious and marked by political realism. For me it is too tactful and cautious, and, if that is political realism, what we need in the future is a dose of radicalism.
	Young man Luther has been mentioned, as has Woody Allen. Let me mention the White Rabbit. I will take you on a trip on the other side of the looking-glass where it resides. The White Rabbit is the Minister for Crazy Schemes. He has instituted a range of crazy schemes in the magic kingdom. For his last pièce de résistance, he is asked to devise a crazy scheme for managing the agrarian resources of the kingdom. First, he devises a scheme that consumes well over 40 per cent of the budget of the kingdom while supporting only 3 per cent of the labour force. Secondly, he devises a scheme that favours intensive farming, with the widespread use of fertilisers and pesticides. The first harms the countryside, and the second probably harms human beings. Pesticides have been shown almost certainly to harm human reproduction. The low fertility rates in Europe are possibly connected with the biological effects of the use of pesticides. Anyone who doubts that should read the book called Our Stolen Future.
	Thirdly, his scheme heavily favours large, rich farmers at the expense of smaller, poorer ones. Some 40 per cent of farms in the kingdom are small ones, but they receive only 8 per cent of the subsidies. Fourthly, his scheme has well known adverse effects on developing countries, in spite of the fact that the kingdom is supposedly devoted to helping developing countries. Fifthly, his scheme produces monotonous countryside, as it favours large farming, rather than countryside that is rich in diversity. Sixthly, rather than bringing down prices for consumers, the White Rabbit's scheme elevates prices. A family of four has to pay £9 extra on its household bills under his scheme. Seventhly, it benefits one state in the kingdom far more than any other. Finally, it is designed so that there is not enough money in the scheme to give to new entrant communities that have been encouraged by the kingdom to join up with it. The scheme is so obviously divisive that the White Rabbit decides to call it the common agricultural policy.
	Let us suppose that the scheme has been set up and that all those faults are well known, as is certainly the case in Europe. What should one do about it? Well, we could reform it a bit, in order to mute criticism of butter mountains because you cannot go skiing on butter mountains. We will reform it a bit more because we need to get the scheme past the WTO and we need to get it into the green box. Europe has a growth rate of just above 1 per cent; the United States has a growth rate of 4 per cent; and the developing countries with which Europe must compete have growth rates of 10 per cent or more. Europe needs investment in technology, investment in education and investment in infrastructure, and those things have to be led by the Commission. What will we do about it? We will make some reforms in 2002 and 2003, but essentially we will wait until 2013 and then we will decide what to do.
	I speak as a pro-European; I am not making those criticisms from a Euro-sceptic position. I feel strongly pro-European, but Europe stands at a crossroads. There is a tsunami approaching Europe, a rolling wave of change to which Europe must respond. Although I feel sympathetic towards what the report says, I feel more sympathetic towards the Government's response to it. The Government say that they do not believe that the EU should spend 40 per cent of the budget on the CAP and that they believe that Europe cannot wait 10 years or more for change: I say "Yes" to that. The Government agree that the Doha development agenda is a high priority and will require further reform: "Yes" to that too. The Government agree that separate funds should be set aside for environmental objectives: "Hurrah" to that. However, I want to ask the Minister the same sort of questions that other noble Lords have asked. How committed are the Government really to reform of the CAP? Is it just a convenient whipping boy? Would the Government be prepared to go against, for example, farming interests in considerable sections of the country in order to reform the CAP? Secondly, is there not a whiff of hypocrisy—I think that my noble friend Lord Anderson of Swansea referred to it—in that the Government seemed to go along with the reforms in 2002–03 and started to make a big hoo-ha about the CAP when they were asked to return some of our refund.
	Finally, against that backdrop, is the only situation one of political realism such as the report suggested? I do not think that that is feasible for Europe. Europe needs more radical reforms. Somehow, these must be made to have purchase within the CAP as well as in reforms of Europe welfare systems too.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Sub-Committee D and an owner of land in the north of England, most of which is let. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Renton for not only introducing this debate but also for the very efficient and patient way in which he chaired our deliberations on this rather complicated subject. The reforms of the CAP that took place in 2003 were certainly radical and complex, but most of us very much welcome the change from agricultural support to payments for environmental management.
	The Government showed great enthusiasm when the negotiations were finally concluded. One statement to illustrate that enthusiasm was that,
	"the agreement today delivers what we wanted—real change . . . the . . . radical and most important element in the package is the . . . Single Farm Payment".
	So, given that clear and unequivocal support for the reforms, it came as quite a rude awakening to the rural communities, which I am bound to say are craving stability at the moment, when the Prime Minister suddenly launched a ferocious attack on the common agricultural policy, condemning it and insisting on further and fundamental reforms.
	It is important to appreciate that by far the largest part of the Pillar 1 contribution is delivered through the single farm payment. That payment has attached to it certain environmental conditions known as cross compliance. As Dr Franz Fischler, the main architect of the recent reforms, put it:
	"The Single Farm Payment is justified because EU farmers could not compete on a global basis and still conform to the EU Regulations on animal welfare and environmental management without such payments".
	So it is important to recognise that the bulk of Pillar 1 payments are not a subsidy but more a payment to farmers for their rural management obligations.
	Furthermore, I believe that I am right in saying that the single farm payment represents about 78 per cent of the total of Pillar 1's contribution, which means that only 22 per cent is still dedicated to what my noble friend Lord Renton described as trade distorting subsidies. We all agree that those must be phased out as soon as possible in order to meet the World Trade Organisation objectives. Of course, the report reflects that. But my question to the Minister is: when the Prime Minister attacks the common agricultural policy and calls for further reform of the subsidy system, is he referring to the 22 per cent of the Pillar 1 which is dedicated to subsidies, or is he going further and attacking the whole edifice on the assumption that he believes that the whole of Pillar 1 is regarded as one big subsidy, including the single farm payment. If that is the case, I regard that as having very serious implications.
	I am not against reform of Pillar 1. But in the absence of a genuine alternative, I remain somewhat loyal to it, as my noble friend knows only too well. Having said that, I was very interested in the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, when he talked about co-financing Pillar 1 and the single farm payment. That idea emanated through the Country Land and Business Association. I very much support it because it would help to concentrate minds. First, it would save on the EU budget as more of the expenditure would be met by member states. Secondly, it would redistribute the budget costs from the big net contributors to the big net beneficiaries—France and Spain. I am fairly certain that that would help to concentrate what I might describe as some prevaricating minds on further reform. I hope very much that the Minister will give very serious consideration to what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, suggested.
	It is clear, as the report reflects, that the Government consider that the future of European agriculture lies within the growth of Pillar 2. I have some reservations about this due to the rather vague nature of Pillar 2 objectives and the inconsistency in delivery, vitally important though many of these schemes are. Clearly, some eastern European countries see Pillar 2 as a means of coming to terms with very big social problems in rural areas where there is high unemployment and many people are living at subsistence level. As one of our witnesses, Dr Sophia Davidora, put it:
	"The priority is, if possible, to take these people out of agriculture and to provide some employment in the vicinity, so that the countryside is not unpopulated".
	These are real problems and I in no way underestimate them. But I believe that a useful streamlining of the system could be introduced through the creation of a single rural development fund, completely separate from any other agricultural objective, as recommended in the report. This would ensure a clearer divide between the particular needs of the new member states and the other environmental and agricultural objectives.
	With the membership of the EU expanding all the time, the CAP can never be all things to all people. It needs to be more focused, with responsibility lying more on each member state. I was very interested when the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that more responsibility should lie with member states. I think the noble Lord is absolutely right. I believe that rich member states will inevitably end up having to fund a higher proportion of their own rural development programmes.
	In conclusion, the press release that accompanied the launch of this report on 15 June stated:
	"The CAP is near breaking point".
	I am sure that is true. But what the rural community needs is stability, clear guidance and a just reward for the services that it provides.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, the subject of this debate is highly topical and it could not be more timely. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and his committee are to be congratulated on producing it just when it was most needed. I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, on his maiden speech and on having brought to this House the skills that he displayed for so long as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place.
	The common agricultural policy, in spite of the very considerable reforms of recent years, remains far from being in a sustainable or acceptable shape for the period ahead. Its financing—still planned to absorb between 40 per cent and 50 per cent of the EU budget for the period 2007–13—is at the heart of the problems that prevented a decision on the future financing of the EU at the European Council meeting last June and which now present Britain's presidency with a major challenge.
	First, I suggest that it is important to recognise that the European Union does need a common agricultural policy, even if it does not need the common agricultural policy, which was formulated in the 1960s and which has been so painfully and, so far, so inadequately reformed. There is much loose talk of repatriating or renationalising agricultural policy, as if that would somehow be in all our interests. I am convinced that it would not be. How long would it be in such circumstances before a whole rash of non-tariff barriers began to spring up at national frontiers to deal with animal and plant health problems, to compensate for fluctuations between euro-zone and non-euro-zone currencies or to offset perceived state aid distortions? What would then be left of the single market on which so much of our prosperity and economic activity depends? So whatever changes are made to the CAP, it is important that the bodies we have set up to guard over the operation of the single market—the Commission, the Council and the Court—should have full regulatory authority to ensure that that does not happen.
	When the financing of the CAP was first settled in 1970, it was envisaged that by far the greatest part of the expenditure would go towards buying-in agricultural surpluses, supporting the level of prices for each commodity agreed at Community level and subsiding exports when the EU price level—as it has almost invariably been ever since—was above world market prices. The amounts allocated to structural expenditure were modest and, in any case, the costs of these projects was shared with member states.
	In those circumstances, the 100 per cent commitment of the EU budget to the market measures was logical given the virtual impossibility of identifying national financial responsibility within a single market where agricultural products moved freely. But that logic no longer exists. The buying-in of massive surpluses is a thing of the past; and the subsidisation of exports will, we must hope, soon be so. The main thrust of the massive agricultural expenditures foreseen for the next budgetary period, 2007–13, is what would be classified as structural, environmental and social. As such, they are allocated geographically. The basic case for 100 per cent European Union financing has thus disappeared.
	The way should therefore now be open for serious consideration to be given to the possibility of substantially increased co-financing—a point referred to by previous speakers—by individual member states, which would finance some of this expenditure without in any way undermining the rationale of a common agricultural policy. Co-financing should not be confused with re-nationalisation, although its critics—and, I suspect, some of its supporters—would no doubt try to do so. It is nothing of the sort. The policies would still be, in outline, decided in common. The compatibility of their implementation with the state aid and other provisions of the single market would be watched over by the Community institutions. But their financing would fall more than now onto the member states. If it was so desired, the figure for member state financing could be set—perhaps for a limited period of time—at a different and higher level in the 15 member states of the pre-2004 Union, the richer ones, than in the new member states that joined in 2004 or later. That would be consistent with the way the other structural spending is being directed to narrow the gap between the new and the old member states.
	It is often argued against co-financing that it would not necessarily reduce the overall level of agricultural spending in Europe; that it might, indeed, even increase. That is theoretically true, but over the medium and longer term I am convinced that the transfer of a greater degree of financial burden back onto national budgets, taken in conjunction with the prospective pressure on those budgets from other demands, would exercise real downward pressure on overall agricultural spending.
	But there is another powerful, non-agricultural argument in favour of an increase in co-financing. It would directly address the justified but somewhat anomalous aspect of the Union's budgetary arrangements—that is, the British abatement. For one thing it would reduce the level of that abatement without applying an arbitrary cap. It would also begin to move the European Union towards a situation whereby its expenditure policies did not have major unintended distorting effects on any member state. The case for special arrangements such as the abatement and its attendant mini-abatements would be far less compelling. But it cannot be repeated too often that as long as more than 40 per of the budget is allocated to a policy which does have such a distorting effect, there can be little prospect or justification for tinkering with the abatement.
	It was the failure to recognise the ineluctable logic of that situation which led to the débâcle last June. It was bad enough to have locked in such a high level of agricultural spending for seven years ahead, as was done—unwisely, in my view, in the context of enlargement—but to combine that with an onslaught on the abatement was sheer folly.
	The way ahead for the British presidency and beyond is neither clear nor easy. I hope that we will hear something from the Minister at the conclusion of the debate on how the Government plan to make progress. I hope, too, that the Government will put neither too little nor too much emphasis on getting a settlement in this presidency. Not too little because in 1992 the then British Government showed that it can be done, and well done, with Britain in the chair; not too much because a failure to reach agreement in the remainder of 2005 would be well short of a disaster. In 1987–88 it took three runs at European Council level to get a deal, and it was an excellent deal too when it was finally achieved.
	What is needed now, I suggest, is a coherent picture for the period ahead, both for the CAP and for overall spending, and one which appeals to all member states more than any alternative. One of those alternatives, of course, might have to be not agreeing at all. The right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister made a good start at this in his speech to the European Parliament in June, but since that not enough has been done to flesh out an approach better for the Union as a whole than the one on offer in June.
	In the meantime, would it not be a wise move to lift the anxieties of the new member states about their structural fund spending by guaranteeing that, in any conceivable circumstances, from 2007 onwards EU budgets would not contain less for them than was provided for in the Luxembourg presidency's June compromise?

Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I, too, enjoyed the contribution of my noble friend Lord Anderson and congratulate him on the wider perspective he brought to our debate. I join with others in showing appreciation to the chairman of the committee for the clarity of its report and for so admirably undertaking a forward-looking inquiry. So often your Lordships' House seems to undertake inquiries into matters past.
	I declare an interest as a dairy farmer in Cheshire, a past president of the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers and a director of Dairy Farmers of Britain.
	CAP reform debate is enduring. Agreement to radical reforms of the CAP was reached in the summer of 2003 and was hailed as a watershed, as agricultural payments would no longer be linked to production and farmers would in future align production to the marketplace. The commission's position in the pace of change is in the middle ground, between the French, who still have 25 per cent of coupled production, and the UK and others, who seek further reforms.
	In this debate, the success in achieving change is repeatedly underestimated. It must also be said that transition takes time, and that farmers and markets need time to digest and respond to change. The reforms introduced are both radical and complex. The Government chose a dynamic system for England, with the most complicated implementation as compared with other parts of the UK and, indeed, the EU. This implementation is still under way, with every prospect that the new payments to farmers will be delayed. In these circumstances, to be opening the prospect of further far-reaching reforms on the back of the debate concerning the UK rebate is inappropriate. It is also rather meaningless to make comparisons between agricultural share of the EU budget and its share of GDP, as CAP is the only sectoral policy under EU competence. The cost of farm support has reduced over a 10-year period from the insignificant 0.61 per cent of the EU's GDP to 0.43 per cent.
	However, that is not to deny that debate still needs to take place on the longer-term future of the CAP, not least as it affects the UK rebate, but also to encompass future enlargement. The single farm payment, with its elements of cross-compliance, moves funds from the trade distortion of Pillar 1 into the green box. This is subject to the EU rates of modulation which require match funding from individual member states. Perversely for rural development, where this modulation funding is not fully utilised, the UK—or, more specifically, the Treasury—receives extra rebate. This means that there is an incentive to reduce the uptake of funds. However, further voluntary modulation, as undertaken in the UK, does not require match funding and does not affect the UK rebate. Can my noble friend confirm, on behalf of his Ministry and the Treasury, that EU modulation funds will be fully utilised in the future?
	One practical way in which a change in agricultural policy arrangements could help deal with the impasse over the EU budget is to change the financial arrangements for CAP and agree a compulsory co-financing of Pillar 1. This point has been made very adequately by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and others, but I would restrict this further to the elements in Pillar 1 that are still in the blue and amber box. Crucially, it would redistribute the budget costs of the CAP from the big net contributors to the net beneficiaries such as France and Spain which, incidentally, have not fully decoupled.
	To return to Pillar 2 payments for rural development and environmental benefits, public money needs to be focused and targeted on public goods to include outcomes not readily identified by the market. That requires a far greater clarity on policy objectives. Should allocation focus on physical criteria such as landscapes and distance from the market rather than economic criteria such as relative incomes and rural enterprise, or be used as a cohesive instrument driving development? This will result in greatly differing patterns of expenditure and acceptability.
	One area of concern is that the schemes for rural development and diversification tend to concentrate on small-scale outcomes and deny funds to the larger farmer co-operatives that, by definition, can do more to support the rural economy and bring their members nearer to the market in terms of value-added products. There needs to be clarity between structural funds and Pillar 2 expenditure. Furthermore, these structural funds should not only be used in the most disadvantaged areas but sensitively to help markets reconstruct with training and skills.
	Agreement for change is difficult. The likely future enlargement of the Union is the most significant pressure post-2013. A more fundamental review of the entire EU budget, including CAP, is still necessary and the recommendations of the report and the Government's response should be considered in that context.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should declare an interest in that I have been involved in agriculture all my life. I would like to congratulate the Members of the sub-committee on their report on this very complicated subject. More personally than that, I would like to congratulate them on understanding what they are talking about. I warmed to the report when it said that terms such as cross-compliance, modulation and de-coupling pepper the papers that the agriculture committee received from Defra. There is even a glossary on all the funny language that is used in the report at the end, and that was very helpful. The trouble with the European Union and the common agricultural policy is that they are filled with unintelligible jargon. To those who are not fully in the know, talking about the European Union or the common agricultural policy is rather like looking into a goldfish bowl. The fish, food and plants all swirl around inside and you just wonder how on earth they all get on and what is going on.
	The report reminds us how the common agricultural policy started with six countries. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who is not now in his place, said that it was to stop people leaving the French countryside. I thought that its purpose was to modernise the agricultures of the common market countries, which indeed it did. However, the common agricultural policy now has 15 states with the addition of Bulgaria and Romania in the future. As the report says, the common agricultural policy takes 50 per cent of the EU budget, but only five per cent of the workforce in those countries is engaged in agriculture. That obviously cannot be right.
	Eight central and eastern European countries have 21 per cent of the workforce engaged in agriculture, and Romania has 42 per cent engaged in agriculture, yet these countries are going to join the European Union. The report then says that the European Union could grow to 27, 29 or even more member states. Where will it all end? Are there no limits to this? Indeed, what is the purpose of the European Union? Is it just like a fat man who continues to eat until he bursts? There must be a purpose and a limit to these things. This is not being insular, but one wonders why the European Union wants to spend its money on other countries who, having modernised their agricultures, will only increase the level of European Union agricultural production leading to further pressures on the common agricultural policy. That point was made in Paragraph 32.
	I have never understood why the common agricultural policy is essential for the European Union to work. People always say that it is necessary—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that it was necessary. The common agricultural policy is certainly ruining the European Union and ruining the agriculture of the European Union because the common agricultural policy and the European Union are trussed up in a mycelium of bureaucracy, red tape and government grants. When the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was in the Government, he said that the Rural Payments Agency could come onto your farm and say, "You've got a heavy piece of machinery there that is wrecking the soil structure, so you will not get paid". That is gross interference and I do not know how a bureaucrat knows about soil structure, which is supposed to be the province of the farmer.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bach, said the other day about the single farm payment scheme—and with a certain amount of pride—that there had been 32 road shows and 1,000 videos produced to tell people how to fill out a form. I am not picking on those two noble Lords, but it so happens that they have both occupied the hot seat. But I wonder what kind of crazy system it is that we must have 32 road shows and 1,000 videos to tell people how to fill out forms. As noble Lords may know, there is a directive called the Physical Agents (Vibration) Directive, which was created because, apparently, if you sit on tractor seats the vibration is bad for you. Somebody is supposed to count the vibrations and then, if you have had too many, if you sit on the tractor seat any longer you have committed an offence. We have a derogation from that directive until 2009, but what about Poland? They do not have that derogation, and they have old enough tractors which must vibrate a great deal more than the modern ones.
	What on earth is going on in the European Union and the common agricultural policy? That is bureaucracy gone mad—it would be farcical, if it were not a fact. The fact is that if you set up a regulating body, the regulators will regulate. Somebody said the other day that birds fly, fish swim and regulators regulate. Apparently nobody can stop it, but it is ruining so much of agriculture and the countryside. Those people make laws that bind us all, and nobody can stop them.
	There is a paradox here. The agriculture in which I was trained at university has gradually slid into insignificance and its output is now less than that of the sandwich industry. Yet the population of the world will increase four-fold in the lives of some of us, from 3,000 million in 1960 to 12,000 million in 20 years' time. The common agricultural policy is not an ideal but a mirage. You try to get over one appalling hump, only to find a bigger one further on. Nobody knows what is the objective to which we should all aspire. I admire those who, like the members of your Lordships' Sub-Committee D, try to understand and grapple with the appalling problems and jargon that the common agricultural policy imposes on us. But I end with expressing the simple, if controversial, view that agriculture in the United Kingdom would be better if we were not part of the common agricultural policy.

Lord Plumb: My Lords, I do not see the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, in his place, so I assume that I follow the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. There was a revised speakers' list, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, is still on it, but he had indicated, as did the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that he could not speak. I apologise because it is my fault that the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, was not properly informed.

Lord Plumb: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness.
	It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. We all sit up and listen when he speaks, and indeed he speaks with a feeling that many people may have in the country—particularly with regard to the form-filling business. It gets to a stage when it becomes nothing short of ridiculous.
	It is a privilege, as other noble Lords have said, to serve on Sub-Committee D under the very able chairmanship and guidance of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. As he said, we are very fortunate to have a very good clerk and specialist staff and we enjoy a remarkable degree of unanimity in our work.
	I speak and react as a farmer and conservationist. We are all aware that the CAP, in spite of what has been said, has been radically reformed. Farmers say that the form-filling in order to meet the requirements of the single farm payment has been nothing short of a nightmare. If we qualify for the benefit of environmentally friendly farming through cross-compliance, many farmers can be forgiven for saying, "But that is what we've always done".
	The stewardship scheme provides some incentive for change, but we must never ignore the fact that we are first and foremost food producers. The agreement between 25 countries is set until 2013 and yet our Prime Minister—as my noble friend Lord Peel reminded us—and the Chancellor still call for further cuts in the budget. If that is what they want I can only say that it will cause yet more confusion among those trying to grapple with the complications of the problem at the moment.
	We know that producing food is hardly an exact science, and it is by nature a very long-term business. It is totally misleading to assume that 40 per cent of the EU budget goes only to farmers. CAP reform has resulted in a shift of support, as we have already heard, from Pillar 1—so-called direct payments—to Pillar 2, rural development. In principle, assuming an efficient allocation of Pillar 2 funds, that should be budget-neutral for the rural economy at the European Union level. But the impact at national level will vary. It is fascinating to hear comments about co-financing, which may be something for the future.
	It is evident that there are growing difficulties in applying single farm payments consistently across all those countries. The potential for competitive distortions becomes even more worrying because of the unfavourable exchange rate that British farmers face. The current strength of sterling against the euro affects not only the amount of support payments but also influences the level of domestic prices and the competitiveness of British produce in international markets. In recent years exchange rate fluctuations have explained some two-thirds of the changes in agricultural income and management instruments remain out of reach for most farmers as a result.
	The situation is becoming increasingly serious particularly because in recent years British farmers have experienced a sustained decrease in farm-gate prices and the continually increasing cost of inputs. For example, while farm-gate prices have decreased on average by 19 per cent since 1995, the cost of inputs has increased 9 per cent. When we link those facts to the increase in regulatory pressures and the skills shortage, the result can be only severe pressures on the farming community despite the fact that farming incomes per capita in 2004 were 45 per cent lower than they were in 1995. In fact, farming income levels in recent years have been similar to income levels in the mid-1980s. This situation is alien to any other sector of United Kingdom business. The situation can be put into context by comparing it to the increase in per capita income during the same period, which is about 200 per cent.
	A reduction in farm-gate prices has not been reflected in reduced food prices. While farm-gate prices between 1996 and 2004 decreased on average by 17 per cent, food prices increased during the same period by more than 8 per cent. Does the Minister agree that, according to Defra's own figures, the farmer's share of the retail price for a basket of food items has decreased by 47 per cent to 35 per cent since 1988?
	So while we welcome the change to the common agricultural policy, and I fully support the report as so well outlined by our chairman, it will make farmers more market focused. We have to analyse the extent to which market signals can function properly given the high market concentration and power in the processing and retail sectors. We must also focus on the future and the different strategies that can contribute to increased prosperity for the farming sector. Institutional support is therefore vital. We can neither abandon nor abolish its role. Perhaps the Minister can explain why the Scots receive their first tranche of money in December but we do not get ours until February.
	So while the cost of the CAP has been the subject of much demagoguery, this figure needs to be put in context. The CAP is the only common expenditure of the European Union and the EU budget represents just over 1 per cent of the European Union's gross national income—as a result, agricultural support represents less than 0.5 per cent of GDP.
	Obviously in the challenge for change that farming is going through, many changes will be made. Some will be difficult to face but I believe that farmers can face them. However, they at least need the satisfaction of knowing that we face stability rather than more frustration.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, like many other speakers I begin my remarks by welcoming this important and timely report on the future financing of the common agricultural policy. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry and the committee on producing it. However, before embarking on the rest of my remarks I should declare an interest as a farmer and a non-executive chairman of Carr's Milling Industries Plc, which, among other thing, is one of the country's largest agricultural suppliers.
	In many ways this report very usefully complements the work recently done by Sub-Committee A, of which I am a member, on the future financing of the European Union as a whole. It is obvious that one cannot seriously consider the Union's finances without considering agriculture and vice versa.
	I want to look at this report in the context of the report produced by Sub-Committee A because it seems to me that there is considerable cross-fertilisation between them. In particular I want to look at agricultural expenditure in the context of European Union expenditure as a whole. I should have liked to look at the rationale for agricultural spending in the 21st century, but given the time constraints I shall omit doing that on this occasion.
	In the report on the future financing of the European Union we endorsed the proposition which was, I believe, originally expressed in a political context by the Chancellor Gordon Brown, that European Union spending on the structural funds should be focused on the recently joined countries and Greece and Portugal. The other member states, the argument runs, are properly placed to fund their own regional and structural spending. I believe that is an essentially sound approach because, as I have frequently said, the European Union is not primarily about budgets and money, it is about laws and regulations. I am coming to the view that the European Union budget should become a financial clearing house, a kind of mechanism which transfers monetary help from the richer to the poorer member states within the discipline of the single legal and economic area. In this report, I think quite rightly, the possibility of a somewhat similar approach to agricultural expenditure was touched on briefly but then put on one side. That is right because for now it is a step too far. However, for the medium term I believe that it merits serious consideration. The process of that consideration should, in my view, begin now.
	As the report correctly recognises, enlargement poses serious problems for the European Union budget in general and for the agricultural budget in particular. What money there is in the budget is under pressure in terms of what we are doing now, and that pressure will increase with further enlargement.
	In my view one of the characteristics of the common agricultural policy that is most misunderstood in this country is the almost sacramental quality which is accorded to it, especially by the founder members of the Union. We all know why the common agricultural policy was placed at the heart of European Union spending for reasons which are entirely understandable and may well have been justifiable 50 years ago. But it seems to me that we should not be afraid to question those reasons, and their relevance, today.
	I digress briefly with regard to France. Of course, France is a major beneficiary of the common agricultural policy. Lucky France, say I. As we point out in Sub-Committee A's report, it is a matter of the French rebate. Indeed, it is probably more than that. It is as if one had some wonderful benefactor who annually paid a large sum towards one's annual unavoidable expenditure. If I were the French, I would fight every inch of the way to maintain the existing common agricultural policy financial structure. Of course, that is what Jacques Chirac does. He deploys logic, false logic, mysticism and assumed mysticism to that task. But it is simply no longer sustainable. It is, in the words of my old friend the late Viscount Whitelaw, bosh.
	In terms of contemporary Europe, I see no justification for the rich European countries not fully funding agricultural expenditure in their own land. As I have already said, in the least well-off countries, there is a similar argument to that which we have been arguing for European Union involvement in the structural funds. We should bring forward the case to bring the present system of agricultural funding to an end, and institute a serious debate not only in this country but elsewhere—all across Europe—about that proposition. At least some of the richer countries may be losers, but the one thing that we can be sure about is that the less well-off will all be winners.
	All that is of course dependent on a new common agricultural policy being put in place, one more akin to current industrial policy than to the existing CAP. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. We need to be absolutely clear that even if much agricultural spending is repatriated, it does not mean that European Union involvement with the policy is cast on one side, any more than it has been with, say, industrial policy. That provides a perfectly good and entirely communautaire precedent for repatriating agricultural spending to member states, subject of course to state aid rules and a general series of overarching common rules. In turn, those rules would be underpinned by funding support for the poorer member states, in recognition of the cohesion of the single market.
	This report, which I warmly endorse, has within it—lurking in its evidence, reasoning and conclusions—some interesting, challenging and very important questions, which require much more further thought and consideration than can be given to them in only one short debate in your Lordships' House on a Thursday afternoon in October. The best interests of rural Britain, rural Europe and Europe as a whole will be served well by long and careful consideration of them, both in this country and elsewhere.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, from these Benches, I join others in congratulating the chairman of Sub-Committee D and the sub-committee on producing the report. Although I am now back as a member of Sub-Committee D, I can claim absolutely no credit for any part of the report, having not been a member when it was drawn together. My congratulations are given with that in mind.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that the breadth of the subject and the interest that there has been in hearing the different arguments this afternoon means that the House should very shortly have another debate on the subject, bringing in other colleagues who expressed an interest in speaking but could not be here today, colleagues with an interest in international development, and so on. There is a large and sweeping scenario to cover.
	In his introduction the noble Lord, Lord Renton, gave us a good picture of where we stand, poised with the next WTO round at Doha in the wings. We have great hopes, but there are some enormous threats too. Whether the United States is likely to translate its words into action is a really big question. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who said that we could move further on modulation. It is one matter highlighted by the report, and bears much further consideration. I might urge caution among noble Lords who argued for repatriation or much more extensive co-financing.
	I want to talk more about Pillar 2 shortly, but I shall deal with the repatriation issue. National governments including our own—perhaps our own in particular; I have more experience of them, including this Government and previous administrations—have a remarkably poor record when it comes to funding rural areas and rural development. They have invented quangos that hand out small amounts from time to time, but rural areas, and especially remote rural areas, have benefited enormously from the relationship with Europe and from the knowledge that they can approach Europe for funds and that they are bidding on the same basis as other regions in Europe. It would be extremely foolish to move quickly to relinquish that.
	As I started on the rural development road, I shall continue on it before coming back to comments from other noble Lords. Paragraph 91 of the report, which suggests that there might be a 55 per cent reduction in rural development funding, is particularly worrying. Perhaps the Minister knows whether the UK Government are now thinking of negotiating on a budget which is substantially reduced compared with Pillar 2. I gather that they are, and that that budget might be at around the 50 per cent level. However, the Minister is frowning so perhaps he will correct me.
	I believe that rural development funding equates to investment in the next generation and in the whole future of rural areas. As paragraph 94 states, structural and cohesion funds are really only suited to large infrastructure projects. When we invest in the future, we need to do so on a human scale. Small local initiatives often produce far more in terms of energy from the people in the area concerned. In fact, "small" is in the nature of rural areas. The settlements are small; the businesses are small; and often the amount of funding needed to get something going is small. So Pillar 2 is immensely important. It deals with a variety of issues and, in future, it will be required to do far more of that work, dealing with diversification.
	I am glad to say that the LEADER programme merits a box on its own in the report. It is an incredibly flexible programme. It puts people at the forefront in solving their community needs and, even better, it encourages co-operation between the European regions in coming up with solutions. Some of the most promising projects that I have come across in terms of what has been delivered have been the LEADER programmes. So I urge the Government to heed the words of many noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon and resist any moves to weaken substantially Pillar 2.
	We have heard some of the downsides of the CAP—for example, the paperwork referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in his usual flamboyant style, talked about over-prescriptive directives. Peers on these Benches are, of course, great Europhiles—we are supporters of Europe. But we see this as being the moment when almost everything European is up for change, and it is an opportunity to get rid of some of the over-bureaucratic approaches that have brought Europe into disrepute. So, we support a European future but we do so with the belief that there should be less paperwork and directives that do not, frankly, make a fool of Europe. It should have directives which can be interpreted appropriately at a national level but which move the agenda forward.
	The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in particular, raised issues and thoughts that I would like to have in the future. I want to think in depth about the points that he raised, and I look forward to reading his speech. He managed to put so much into his allotted six minutes that it will merit very careful study.
	I turn briefly to the White Rabbit mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Giddens. That White Rabbit has hopped not only all over Europe but all over the world. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, was the first person to talk about food. In fact, I think that he was the first person in this debate to use the word "food". Throughout the world, the White Rabbit has had an effect on coffee prices. Headlines indicate that the effects of coffee prices have ruined countless farmers in Kerala in India. One can also look to the Caribbean and some of the Latin American countries where small producers of all kinds have been driven to the wall.
	Then we come back to the UK and the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, mentioned the basket of commodities. I have different figures for different years, but the effect has been an enormous price cut for producers at a time when everyone else's income has increased. One particular figure brought it home in a real way. It came from the chairman of Devon County Council, a dairy farmer in that county. The drop in milk price alone over the past decade equals an annual cash loss of £40 million to Devon. It takes a great deal of rural development funding to make that up—in fact, it cannot be made up. We are currently playing catch-up for the drop in prices.
	I appreciate the arguments that a drop in prices is good for consumers, but consumers are increasingly questioning that in terms of the quality of the food and some of the prices they are now paying for cheap food. So we are beginning to question the activities of the White Rabbit not only in Europe but all over the world.
	Finally, I turn to the interesting question raised by my noble friend Lord Livsey: the fact that Europe has failed to make proper provision for Romania and Bulgaria. That is a real indictment of the institution, is it not? It is a lesson that the institution needs to bear in mind because if Europe is to look to further expansion, it cannot afford to make such a miscalculation. I want Europe to be well regarded and to be seen as a dynamic single market, but it must improve in terms of getting things right more than my noble friend's example suggests it does.
	Again, I thank Sub-Committee D for producing a report of this quality. I also appreciated the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that we must keep it in the context of the Sub-Committee A report. I am sorry that I had not obtained or read it before today's debate but I certainly mean to do so.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry and his committee and thank them for this report. It took evidence from a wide range of specialists and, as a result, has come forward with many practical conclusions. It is good that we have had five members of that committee debating with us today. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, on his excellent maiden speech. It was most thoughtful and we greatly look forward to hearing from him in the future. Finally, I remind the House of our family's farming interests in Suffolk.
	The single farm payment came into effect on 1 January this year, but it is not to be paid to farmers until February 2006. This delay is causing great anxiety among farming businesses. Can the Minister assure us that this date will not slip even further and that the Rural Payments Agency and its IT system are able to cope?
	My noble friends Lord Peel and Lord Plumb spoke of the need for stability. My noble friend Lord Plumb spoke of the confusion that exists among farmers. It is important that they are paid what they are owed and are paid on time. It is unacceptable that they are experiencing this delay.
	My honourable friend Jim Paice called for action on rural payments back in June and said that no farmer should be penalised because the government agencies are able to provide maps, forms and other information required to support applications. My noble friend Lord Ferrers spoke of the form filling; the burden is heavy. In particular, no one should find this year's payments delayed beyond 5 April, resulting in an income tax demand based on the receipts of two single payments in the same financial year, 2006–07.
	We have had an interesting debate. It has varied widely. I should like to return to the whole question of co-financing, on which so many noble Lords spoke. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, recognised that there is already pressure on Pillar 1, and that that will ultimately put greater pressure on Pillar 2. As I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge, the reform of the CAP is having a major impact on the organisation of UK agriculture. The committee studied the intricacies involved and made recommendations that we are debating today. I remind noble Lords that the British Government is the only country to have chosen voluntary modulation, the result of which, as we have seen, has in certain cases had an adverse impact on equity in British farming and distortion of competition noted in the report.
	In its briefing, the NFU expressed its concern that the increase in Pillar 1 payments will not necessarily be accompanied by an increase in alternative funds. It fears that the distribution of the national modulation across member states will vary. The resultant impact on farming communities is unknown, but could result in yet further distortions to fair trade between EU partners. My noble friend Lord Plumb spoke in particular about food production. The whole question that we should be debating concerns long-term food production, not only in this country but throughout Europe and the world. We should not apologise for producing high-quality food and I firmly believe that we should continue to do so.
	The committee recommended that the EU strive to attain a successful Doha agreement. However, by how much has the Prime Minister's call for further CAP reforms before 2013 weakened the Government's negotiating position, despite Commissioner Marianne Fischer-Boel's rebuttal? Peter Mandelson further confused the picture last Tuesday when he suggested that, during the world trade talks, he will slash EU farming subsidies even further. That does not bring stability or knowledge to farming communities. When he winds up the debate, will the Minister clarify the Government's intention and describe how they will relate to the recommendations made by the committee?
	In considering future financing, the committee considered whether the expenditure planned for supporting Romania and Bulgaria's accession in 2007 was adequate. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, just referred to that. I understand that the majority of witnesses felt that the current budget proposals are inadequate and could be financed only by cutting direct payments to the EU 15 via the use of financial discipline mechanisms. Will the Minister update us on current government thinking?
	In addition, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords, we face reforms to sugar, dairy, vegetable and wine regimes due in 2006–07. Is the Minister confident that that can be achieved within the present financial circumstances? If not, how will it be achieved?
	Support payments are Pillar 1. Pillar 2 covers rural development. Currently, they are intended to alleviate both socio-economic and physical disadvantage. Future targets are still to be decided and could have a negative impact, should they be used to assist convergence between the 15 and the new members. Should there be insufficient funds to meet Pillar 2-type expenditure across the expanded EU, either national governments will have to make up the shortfall or, especially in those countries that have received Pillar 2 funding for some time, rural projects will have to be abandoned. I must tell the Minister that that concern has been raised with me on many visits around the countryside. Some of those projects have potential for considerable benefit to rural communities, which could well be hampered. It is even possible that the abandonment of projects and a reduction in real terms of the moneys coming through our rural communities will damage their competitiveness.
	How do the Government view the possibilities before us? What steps do they intend to take to ensure that the UK's share of Pillar 2 does not fall any further?
	The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, raised specifically a point that was raised by many—should we expect particularly those longer-standing EU countries to co-finance some of their future expenditure? My noble friends Lord Biffen, Lord Peel, Lord Inglewood and others also raised that question. There will be an increased cost, which I am sure will not be covered in the existing arrangements, although I await the Minister's reply with interest.
	I should like to pass a thought across. My honourable friend Oliver Letwin, when unveiling our party's plans in June 2005, called for three things. First, a compulsory decoupling of the single farm payment from all production across all member states, as it is in England. Will the Government undertake that? Secondly, the scrapping of all EU support for tobacco production, on which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, touched earlier. Thirdly, in maintaining the single farm payments until 2012, but increasingly switching its fund through compulsory co-financing, will the Government consider that or do they wish to leave it for each country to decide how they will go about it? If they do decide on the latter, how will they actually manage to fall fairly within the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that you need a framework on which you have fair trade, and yet you still allow each country to do their own thing? That is a real and very difficult issue to resolve, and I would be interested to hear the Minister's response.
	This has been an important and timely debate. The Minister knows well how strongly I believe in UK agriculture. I am sorry that it has not been touched on more generally, but in fairness to the committee they were asked to look at the future financing of CAP specifically, and not to reflect on the need for food and food production. In my humble estimation, you cannot separate the two; they go together.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I begin by first thanking everyone who has taken part in the debate, and I thank especially the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and members of his committee for producing such an important and well-written report. He will not be surprised to hear that we agree with the general thrust of his report, particularly on the need for further reform of the CAP. Indeed, the fact that it is an important report is proven by the fact that as distinguished a journalist as Mr Peter Riddell devoted a column to his report, which is not something he does for every report that appears in this House.
	Before I go on, I want to praise the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Anderson of Swansea. He is an experienced and successful parliamentarian of many years' standing and a renowned expert on all matters to do with foreign affairs. Having listened to him, albeit for six minutes, one can tell exactly why he has such a high reputation. This House is extremely lucky to have him as a Member. I and others look forward to his future contributions.
	While the 2003 reforms represent in our view a very good deal by creating a better policy framework for the CAP—for reducing trade distortion; for addressing some of the negative environmental consequences and freeing farmers to become more competitive and market-oriented—there frankly remains a need for further reform. In particular, as has been said by many noble Lords, there is a need to address the high cost that the CAP still poses for both taxpayers and consumers. I assure the House that the Government will continue to make that reform a priority.
	As the report notes, those reforms introduced the single payment scheme for farmers—I will comment on the details of that later, if I have time—which breaks the link between the bulk of subsidy and production, and makes subsidy dependent on meeting environmental and animal health and welfare standards. That means that the CAP direct payments are significantly less trade distorting and less environmentally damaging. Those changes also pave the way for a more market-oriented and competitive farming industry. I believe that, in spite of all the current problems, farming is ready for that. The level of the single payment scheme should not be regarded as permanently fixed.
	That new policy direction must be followed, not reversed. We are pleased that negotiations are under way in the EU to extend the principles of the 2003 reforms to the sugar regime—the noble Lord, Lord Renton, spent some time on the subject. We would like to see them extended yet further when other scheduled reviews of parts of the CAP come up over the next few years.
	Achieving reform of the EU sugar regime will not be easy, but progressing the proposals to the Commission's timetable is a top priority for the UK presidency. We have provided for an intensive work programme to prepare for decisions at the Agriculture Council in November, and work is progressing to timetable. I am well aware that it is important to beet growers that decisions be taken as early as possible, so that they can plan for the coming growing season.
	However, more can be done to ensure that farming becomes more competitive, sustainable and innovative in responding to challenges such as globalisation and climate change. Globalisation brings opportunities, which we are keen to exploit. Much more progress also needs to be made on cutting the taxpayer and consumer cost of the common agricultural policy, which is estimated at around €100 billion per year—around €50 billion in taxpayer costs and €50 billion through higher food prices.
	A debate has begun on the shape and size of the EU budget, and about how it can deliver best value for citizens and help the EU meet the challenges of this century, such as globalisation, continued economic growth and environmental protection. There is no secret agenda. We want to end the trade-distorting effects of the CAP policies. As part of the debate, the UK Government have called for a budget review during the next financial perspective to ensure that it delivers better value and is fit for this century. As has been said a number of times in this excellent debate, the common agricultural policy makes up over 40 per cent of the current European budget, so clearly it needs to be part of that review. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made that point a few minutes ago. As with all spending programmes, we need to ask ourselves quite simple questions: whether this money is being spent as well as possible or whether it could be better spent elsewhere. We believe that the goals of a competitive, sustainable EU farming industry can be achieved at a lower cost through an updated policy framework.
	We are not calling for further changes to the CAP overnight; rather, we want a debate that includes all parties involved in the EU, followed, as necessary, by a planned process of change. That is why the UK presidency has consulted member states on the future financing negotiations. The debate must be inclusive, enabling all partners and stakeholders to express how they see the future of European agricultural policy developing. Of course we will play a full part in contributing to that debate.
	Following the European Council in June, it became clear that some member states wished to revisit certain areas of the overall budget. The UK and others called for any such examination—quite justifiably—to take the entire budget into account, including our abatement and funding of the CAP. Consequently, since July, we have held formal presidency consultations with each of the member and accession states, in order to ensure that we understand the views and concerns of each of them. It was right for us to do so, given our presidency, and to allow member states to step back from the heat of the negotiating table and consider the way forward. It was also right that we understood what our partners were saying.
	We still believe, as a Government, that the priorities of an enlarged EU can be met within the overall budget worth 1 per cent of EU gross national income, and that, in order to achieve that, EU spending must be disciplined and effective. However, we take on board the crucial points that the committee makes in its report.
	As part of our approach, we have argued that the EU structural funds, of which there has not been much mention in this debate, should be focused on the poorest member states, and that richer countries should take primary responsibility for financial regional development programmes from their domestic budgets. We are not advocating renationalisation. All member states should sign up to EU-wide objectives for regional policy. Moreover, enlargement highlights the importance of ensuring that EU agricultural spending is directed where it is most needed, and in a way that brings most benefits for rural development. We believe that the CAP must continue to change to benefit all citizens in an enlarged EU.
	Where are we at present? The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was right: we certainly need a CAP, though not perhaps the current CAP, to keep the single market going. Related to this, the Government believe that a better balance for the needs of rural development could be found by increasing the funds available under Pillar 2 by modulation of funds from Pillar 1.
	Before I come back to that crucial point—and it is one that the committee supports, when it points out the problems attached to it—I was asked questions in relation to a deal on future financing. We are committed to working towards a deal during our presidency. We have called for the broader debate that I have referred to. We have no formal proposal at the moment. On the basis of the consultation that has been taking place all summer, we anticipate tabling a proposal later in our presidency.
	We hope to secure agreement to reform of the sugar regime during our presidency. More widely, we are hoping to set in motion a fundamental review of EU expenditure, to report during the next financial perspective on all areas of expenditure. We have asked for a proper debate.
	With regard to Pillar 2, the agri-environment schemes currently funded under the England Rural Development Programme have delivered significant environmental objectives from agriculture. They have been funded by voluntary modulation. It is essential that, in order to continue delivering these schemes, such modulation of funds from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 of the CAP continues into the next financial perspective.
	Rural development expenditure should be effective and deliver value for money. The recently adopted rural development regulation and the proposed strategic guidelines for rural development both helped to achieve these objectives. The strategic guidelines lay out clear objectives for rural development expenditure, linking them to wider shared EU priorities such as increased employment and improved biodiversity. I stress that the Government acknowledge the importance of adequate funding for rural development. We have argued, and will continue to argue, for a further transfer of resources from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2.
	The Commission's original proposals, on the basis of the figure of 1.4 per cent, suggested a rural development budget of £88 billion. That represents a substantial increase on current levels, but, I repeat, we believe that with reform and prioritisation, a disciplined budget of around 1 per cent is more than enough to meet the demands of an enlarged Union.
	I turn to co-financing, which has been raised today by many noble Lords. My predecessor, my noble friend Lord Whitty, first mentioned it in passing. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke about it in some detail. The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and others have talked about it. It is obviously a matter that we must consider carefully. It is one option among many that have to be examined. If it were to be introduced—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, referred to it—it would have to be done in a way that ensured that there was no increase in total public spending in the EU. We see that as a danger—the EU budget plus the national budget. Any move towards co-financing should, of course, ensure that a level playing field is retained and should not stand in the way of further reform to tackle the economic ills of the CAP or its overall cost to consumers and taxpayers. Today, answering a question on co-financing in another place, the Secretary of State, Mrs Beckett, said:
	"That is not popular with everybody but, of course, the main thing that we have to bear in mind is that whatever changes might be made at any point in the future there is a single market in farm produce and a level playing field across the EU".
	I turn to a point made by several noble Lords, including the noble Earls, Lord Erroll and Lord Ferrers, the noble Lord, Lord Plumb—to great effect—and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, may be surprised to hear that I agree with some of what he said, particularly what he said about the need for simplification. It is my view and the view of the Government that, in farming, there is too much bureaucracy and too much regulation. Of course, there is an important place for regulation with regard to health and safety, but there is a drive now throughout government—whatever the noble Earl may think—to improve regulation across the piece. There is a great deal more to be done in agriculture.
	The form for the single payment scheme was extremely complicated and difficult. In a sense, it had to be: it is a radical change. I am determined to try to make sure that, in future, form filling is not the hell that it is turning out to be. It is not fair on farmers; it does not need to be as complicated as it is. I am not after easy plaudits—it is more difficult to do than I am saying—but it needs to be done. Our whole-farm approach, about which, I hope, the House will hear more in due course, is an attempt, at least, to simplify what is needed to make sure that farming is successful. I have a lot of time for the remarks that the noble Earl made; perhaps, I would not have made them in quite the same way. There are points to be made, particularly with regard to better regulation.
	I also took on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, about food. Although environmental considerations are critical to the way that the countryside looks, we must never forget that we are a country that produces very high-class food, and we have to thank our farmers for that.
	I want to say a word about the single payment scheme. Of course, there have been considerable difficulties, as the House knows, with putting that scheme into effect. I am not surprised that there have been. Significant effort is being focused on ensuring that payments begin in February. Notwithstanding the important implementation steps that still lie ahead, that remains our best estimate. We have also secured EU legal provisions to make interim payments to farmers, and we are developing contingency systems that could deliver such payments in February, if necessary.
	I shall say a word about CAP reform, the Doha development agreement and the Hong Kong summit in December. All of these are inextricably linked with what we have been talking about today. Within agriculture, the Doha development agreement commits us to comprehensive negotiations aimed at substantial improvements in market access; reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies, which, in my view, is a necessary policy; and substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support. We want to see significant progress towards that at the ministerial meeting in Hong Kong.
	Negotiations are entering a crucial phase at the moment as WTO members seek agreement in key areas, including agriculture. The shift to a more serious dialogue is very welcome given our wish to see a successful outcome at Hong Kong, where we want to see a collective EU view on that. This provides us with an historic opportunity to deliver significant economic gains and, frankly, to deliver millions of people out of poverty, particularly in the developing world.
	I am conscious that I have not answered all of the questions that have been asked, but, of course, I will write in the normal way. As regards the future financing discussion, I reiterate that the Government do not have any blueprint for a deal that I can announce to the House. Any proposal from our presidency will need to take into account the views of other member states, which, as I have mentioned, we have sought. We are committed to working towards agreement in December, and that remains the case today.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and his committee again for an excellent report. I am sure that we will discuss it again, but today's debate has been very helpful.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his interesting reply. It was rather franker, with more meat in it than one sometimes hears in ministerial replies. I know that we will all want to study it very carefully. On a theme that many noble Lords have said has run through this debate, under Pillar 2 especially, more should be done by national countries. There should be more co-financing and no more 100 per cent EU financing. That means more public money coming from national government. I hope that the Treasury are listening to those words sympathetically. In my experience, when money is short, I have, sadly, never found that environment was very high up the list of Treasury priorities. Perhaps the Minister will see that that is changed.
	I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, on his maiden speech. We sat on other sides of the other place for 23 years looking across at each other. I remember his wittedness and his kindness. I would say to him now that I suspect that his Welsh accent has got slightly diminished. But I am sure that the wisdom, the wittedness and the kindness will all be there in this place. I welcome him here very heartedly. I thank all noble Lords who took part in this very interesting and wide ranging debate. It would be odious to mention any names—it is not necessary. But I thank all who took part. It started a discussion which will continue.
	I would just comment on a remark made by my noble friend Lord Plumb, a member of our committee, who said that we do work on the committee with a remarkable degree of unanimity. "Remarkable" is perhaps the operative word. Now that we are embarked on a report on the reform of the sugar regime, I hope that we can continue to show the same degree of unanimity.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past seven o'clock.